wmachine

I can't believe that GM Canada's (or any other car company) record keeping had anything to do with collect-ability.
Try to think of things as they were back then. They were not making cars for the collector car market. They kept records that they thought they may need. If you don't need them, pitch them. The question isn't "why did they pitch them?", it was "why would they keep them"?
Probably the reason GM Canada has them is simple logistics: Far less of them and they take up a fraction of the space. IIRC, the GM Heritage Center said the Cadillac records are better.
The records were kept (or not) by division, it was not a corporate thing.
Pontiac wouldn't have the records they do (at the PHS) if it weren't for the efforts of (a very few) guys who were were in the right positions and did the right thing at the right time to save the records. And at the time, I'm sure there were many management people that thought they were being unproductive with their time.

jaunty75

We have to remember something else in all of this. It's really comparing apples and oranges when we say that, well, Corvette has a nice, comprehensive reference, so why not Olds?

The Chevrolet Corvette lives in its own universe. It is the SIGNATURE car of Chevrolet. It is perhaps A signature car of GM. It has been called THE American sports car. Unlike anything else GM has made or makes, no other division has ever had a corporate cousin to the Corvette. No other domestic manufacturer has ever tried to duplicate the Corvette. It should come as NO SURPRISE that Chevrolet would have realized right from the beginning, even before they knew if the car would be popular enough to survive beyond the first few model years, that keeping keeping detailed records about its production would be a good thing to do. To claim that because there is such a thing as a Corvette reference that has every detail imaginable about the car's production means that other makes and models should have the same thing is just not being realistic.

Let's now move on to the Camaro. It is not quite the same thing as the Corvette, but even it is a bit more unique than the 442. Remember, the Camaro was produced in response to the pony car revolution instigated by Ford's introduction of the Mustang. That came out in 1964, and it took three years for GM to respond with the Camaro and Firebird. These cars have always been their own model line. Again, it's not surprising that very good records of these cars might have been kept.

Now lets talk about the 442. It began life as an option package on the Cutlass. Over the years of its heyday (which I'm defining as 1964 through 1972), it was its own separate series and not just a derivative of another series for only four model years ('68 though '71). While it certainly would have been nice to have detailed records of 442 production from back in the day, it is not at all surprising, given the very different circumstances under which it came into being and existed over its life, that such records might not have been as well kept.

Another comment that we've kind of heard in this thread is a general criticism of Olds for not having as good a set of records as exist for Camaro and Corvette. But what about the rest of Chevrolet? Is there a reference like these Camaro and Corvette books for Impala? For Chevy II/Nova? For Chevelle? (For Vega? )

The bottom line is, it's great that good records exist for Camaro and Corvette. It is not surprising and no criticism of Olds or 442 enthusiasts that similar records don't exist for 442.

Diego

No book is needed. All that is needed is an online resource.

Well, by "seen almost every musclecar publication" I mean that I grew up in the 1980s when these cars were starting to get popular. When Mom went to the mall, I went to B. Dalton or Waldenbooks and checked out what they had. I bought very few books back then because I felt they were expensive and had other ideas where to spend my money. Then they went out of print and I felt disappointment that some of them were not a part of my collection. Discovering the Internet and eBay brought the books back to my consciousness so I don't think there's much out there that I haven't seen. If there is something I've missed, I'd love to discover it!

And if anyone was offended . . . please, get over yourselves.

(By the way, if anyone knows where I can get a copy of Williamson's "Tailfins & Bowties" (or is it the inverse?), please let me know!

These records were kept by the divisions, although they were organized in different manners because each division was pretty much its own company. Look at documents from the different divisions and you'll see they have their own coding for RPOs and build sheets, among other things. Why would they tabulate this information? Because marketing in a competitive arena demands it.

So where are the records? You hear different stories from different people, and sometimes an Old Wive's Tale creeps in (such as a fire destroying the records, although it seems it may be the truth for Oldsmobiles for certain years). And if any records exist, how come they're not in the public domain? Well, for starters, GM is in the business of building new cars, not keeping documents for old ones. And then who compiles the info? Who gets paid for it? Or who would volunteer? In Chevrolet's case, the rumor (pretty sure it's true, although I don't wish to be quoted!) is that they exist but red tape is in the way. Since the head of Pontiac Historical Services was the one who mounted the campaign to get this info, I would think if he can't get it, no one can.

Well, Corvettes have had strong collector support for a long time, so it would stand to reason that documenting these cars has been easy. And while the Camaro also has the luxury of being a Chevrolet and has had strong collector support forever, the White Book still bases its information from items that are not in the general public domain yet was available through the right channels (i.e. that book I mentioned I'm looking for).

Just to clarify about PHS, but they offer the original invoices. Any specific production figure(s) is based on the research of Fred Simmonds, a long-time employee who cross-referenced information and compiled it on his own. A lot of this information is much more detailed than the general information that's available for Chevrolets.

There is some info from Chrysler Historical, but they usually don't give it out. And then there's Galen Govier, who has a lot of this information, although it's not 100% accurate because it involves cars only destined for the US - see attached pic for one of the items Galen uses.

In recent years, Buick and the Sloan Museum has allowed the public to go to the library and compile information for their own use. Until recently, nothing was known about Buicks other than "81 Stage 1 ragtops were built in 1971," but now it's possible to learn how many of those cars had AC, for example.

For Fords, they have the Marti Report, a document produced by Marti Auto Works based on old records (IBM? Reel-to-reel? I am not sure) and licensed by Ford. I also have attached something to show what this is.

GM of Canada is a separate entity from GM of America. They had their own records and did things their own way so, yes, their records for Olds should be better than what we have in the States. So, indeed, I am agreement with W-machine's post.

In sum, the level of records that exist is consequential and happenstance, not due to any form of corporate hierarchy or what-not.

wolfman98

I think that puts everything into perspective and should answer the question posed about why there is no Olds gold book . The fact is that no one will ever be able to detail production of the 442 like corvette or camaro. It is not that Olds enthusiasts would not like a book, it is only the fact that gathering such details that Diego would like to see would be impossible at this point.

wolfman98

I guess one of the things to remember is just how big GM was at one point and like you said what made sense to each division at the time.

wmachine

Jaunty, you're missing the true cause and effect, *and* bottom line.
All of the information for Corvettes, Cameros, and 442s (etc.) was there "at the time".
It was not a matter of what *auto maker* kept better records as to why there are Vette and Camero books that 442s don't have. These books were put together by enthusiasts, not GM or Chevy *directly*.
Starting with the fact that Vettes and Cameros were made in much higher numbers than 442s, the likelihood and interest was much greater to make these books happen.
No criticism to Olds, but *yes* the reality *is* that the criticism goes to "442 enthusiasts" for the lack of getting and keeping the records as other make enthusiasts have done. Sad truth. The shoe fits and I wear it.
You want to compare apples and apples? Back in the late '80s (when more records were avaiable), The Oldsmobile Performance Chapter drew 100-150 cars (sometimes even less) to their national meet. Buick GS nationals were drawing 1500 cars to their national meet in the same geographic area of the country. See what I mean? Now which of those 2 clubs do you think more aggressively pursued records?
There are some harsh realities here.

jaunty75

Of course I am. I never get anything right.

You're telling me that GM and Chevrolet never had a direct interest in documenting the Corvette's history, and right from the beginning? I don't buy it. The Corvette was created, from scratch, to be a unique vehicle in American automotive history, and it has become that. The 442 was not created in this way, and does not occupy a similar place in automotive history. It was just one of many muscle cars available in the '60s and early '70s.


No disagreement here.


As I said before, I don't think it's fair to criticize 442 enthusiasts for the lack of record-keeping. When the first 442 came out, it was, frankly, a minor option package on an "intermediate"-size model line, and it was a quick response by Olds to the Pontiac GTO. It wouldn't even be unfair to say that the first 442 was a quick, "patch job" by Olds to respond to the GTO. No one at that time stopped and said, "hey, this is going to go on to become something unique that we ought to have the foresight to preserve the records on." Unlike the Corvette, it was only in hindsight that the significance of the 442 was recognized.

wmachine

The fire is still an old wives tale as far as *all* Oldsmobiles records go. No fire. The records just weren't kept. The GM Heritage Center will confirm that, and nobody has ever come with any proof of a fire. There is *very* little left of any production records prior to the '80s. The GMHC has what is left of all of the records that Oldsmobile had, and there just isn't much of left *production record*-wise at GMHC.
I'm not as certain about the Chevy situation, but from what I was told by the archive director, it sounds like the "red tape" is a rumor, and Chevy doesn't have the records either.
I've been there to do research and I'll be going back for more, so this isn't second hand information.

wmachine

Chin up, my friend. I'm glad you're concerned and posting, and I'm not putting you down. But you are saying a lot that is open to debate.
Are you "buying" and "believing" based on facts, or what you think happened, or should have happened?
It is not a matter of "blaming" anyone, but to answer the question as to why there aren't the records for Oldsmobile that there are for other makes, or at least models. The fact is that the Oldsmobile enthusiasts didn't get the information when it was available like other make/model enthusiasts did.

Diego

Kurt, I usually see the head of PHS once a year, so I had asked him a year or two ago. I just don't remember what the answer was so I was going by my limited memory with the addition of a caveat. I probably could find out the truth with a little poking around.

jaunty75

Right. And the REASON they didn't is because of the very different way in which the 442 came into being as compared to other muscle cars of the era. Again, the first 442 was a mid-year "patch job" on the Cutlass designed to get something out the door quickly to give Olds dealers something to sell to compete with the GTO. No one at the time, not even the buyers of those first 442s, were thinking that they were getting in on the ground floor of something big. This came later, when getting records became more difficult. GM didn't help matters any by not keeping good records itself, again likely because no one thought there was a reason to.

wolfman98

I think that one of the factors may have been in the developmental differences between the corvette and the 442. The corvette was a 'new" american sports car and was something special right from the start.The car had a lot of enthusiasts right from day one while the 442 was something added to an existing car that did not have the same kind of enthusiasts. firebird and camaro were a new seperate line in response to the popularity of the mustang and GM needed that "affordable" sport car. muscle car enthusiasts still put the 442 way down on the list of collectables but that's their loss I guess.

wmachine

Okay, but what do you mean by later? Still by at least the mid-80s, most of the now missing records were still there at Oldsmobile. That was later enough for other enthusiasts.
GM? They had nothing to do with the vast majority of the keeping of records at any of the divisions, so it has nothing to do with GM.

jaunty75

I couldn't have said it better myself!

jaunty75

The date I've heard mentioned most often is 1977 for which record-keeping got better, but regardless of specifically when better records began to be available, the 442 grew up under circumstances different from the Corvette, certainly, and other sports cars as well. Enthusiasts of the 442 are certainly not completely blameless and could have done more at the time, but they would have had a more difficult starting point.


I don't understand this statement. Record-keeping BEGINS with the manufacturer, whether it's GM or the Oldsmobile division. All the enthusiasts in the world can't construct a production history if the raw data is not there to begin with.

Yes, if 442 enthusiasts, perhaps all five of them, had gone to Oldsmobile in 1965 and asked for production records of the '64 442, they might have found them. But no one in 1965 was thinking this way about the 442, and I don't think it's fair to blame these enthusiasts for not having the foresight to collect these records when they were available. Few people have that kind of foresight. By the time 442 enthusiasts WERE thinking this way, those records were gone. Those records being gone is GM's fault.

Now early Corvette enthusiasts may or may not have had any more foresight than early 442 enthusiasts did, but I'll bet you dimes to dollars that, when Corvette enthusiasts began to want to assemble this information and went to Chevrolet to ask for it, they found much better records because Chevrolet ITSELF thought that those records might be worth keeping on this car.

Diego

You're looking for something that isn't there - the 4-4-2 was originally an option package. There's nothing special how the car "came into being" as the GTO also was an option package. The fact that Olds people are at a loss is consequential and has nothing to do with anything else.

The Corvette was nothing special from the start. It had an antiquated 6-cyl. with an automatic transmission. Only in 1955 with the advent of Chevy's small block did things get interesting, but it was almost killed by then because of poor sales performance. The V-8 and the persuasion of Zora Arkus-Duntov is the reason why it survived past 1954. The cult of Corvette didn't really happen till later in the 1970s.

---

This thread is taking an even stranger turn than before. Logic doesn't need to be applied to this topic - the records (or lack thereof) just is what it is.

wmachine

The records *were* there for production prior to '77. The raw data *was* there. So it was not a matter of there being better records after '77. It is a matter of what was kept. And what was obtained (or not) by anyone before they were pitched. Oldsmobile enthusiasts did *not* have a more difficult starting point. Nobody did it, that's all. They didn't have to go for it in 1965 as you say, they could have gone and got it in 1980. But except for a few exceptions, they didn't.
I can't seem to get you to understand that there *was* a rather large window of opportunity and the info was there.

footnote: as time progressed into the '80s, the record keeping improved quite a bit, primarily because of computers and the relative ease of keeping records.

mugzilla

No ...

No ...

I'm searching myself ...

This brings up the importance of documenting such things as date codes on parts when you break anything down and any visible numbers/letters ...