my71olds

Hello:

I have a 71 olds cutlass supreme conv which I believe does not have the original engine. How can you tell what year the engine is that I have so I can see if its aL74 or L65. Is that done by getting the code off of the block?

Thanks

krooser

Block # is in front of the intake manifold behind the timing cover...

cutlassefi

Uhh...... that won't tell him much.

There's a tab on the front driver side of the block up by the cylinder head. That'll tell you what the motor came out of.

Allan R

Here...This will tell you if the engine is original. If the last 6 numbers on this stamping pad match the last 6 digits of your cars VIN, it's the original engine.

MDchanic

Allan, you forgot the other picture.



- Eric

my71olds

Thanks for the info I will check again this weekend

joe_padavano

There's some bad information in this thread. First NONE of the casting or VIN derivative numbers anywhere on the outside of motor will tell you WHICH version it is. The block casting number is the same on EVERY 350 motor built for the 1971 model year, as are the head castings. The VIN derivative will only tell you the model year, assembly plant, and VIN sequence number.

IF the paper tag is on the oil fill tube, and IF it's the original one, that will tell you what the engine is. Good luck with that.

Short of disassembling the motor and checking piston dish, cam profile, and valve diameter, there's no external way to prove what the engine is.

Allan R

Joe, with all due respect the information that has been posted is all GOOD. No one here has tried to tell the OP what version of the engine he has. Go look. Only references are to the block casting number and whether it's the original from the car.

The VIN stamping pad WILL confirm whether the engine is original (not what version it is) based on the derivative matching the VIN itself. There's nothing that has been posted that states whether it's an L74 or not.

joe_padavano

Sorry about that, you are correct. The O.P. was asking how to find the YEAR of the block, which obviously IS in the VIN derivative.

Allan R

It would be so easy to say this is bad information since you didn't specify Olds production; instead you listed EVERY 350 which could include Chev, Buick, Olds and Pontiac. But, here's your hall pass so we don't have to go there. And yes I know the intention was for Olds since this is an Olds site, but other motors/brands get discussed here too.

my71olds

Thanks everyone I will take your information and use the FAQs from the link below to see what I can find out. I did this once and cannot locate where I put it. I do recall that its not the original block.

http://www.442.com/oldsfaq/ofblk.htm...0Block%20Block

Allan R

I removed the image and suggestion I posted here (although it's easily seen in some of the quoted references) because it was noted by another member as having some bad information (referred to as bullshed). I only posted the information related to gasoline power and cropped the section dealing with Diesel engines off as it wasn't relevant to the discussion. That chart was acknowledged as inaccurate by an administrator of Wild About Cars (wmachine) and in need of update. After reading the discussion wmachine posted identifying the significant difference between document status and compiled information status I am not sure what to believe when I visit the Wild About Cars Tech section.

So, with that in mind I also will modify the posts I made on this thread that reference the incorrect WAC information to what I know is accurate. For everyone's information; yes I am a member of Wild About Cars and use their information on occasion here as a quick reference instead of having to scan it from my CSM, AM or other genuine Oldsmobile Actual Documents. I also use other sources of information (books; some GM, some not and electronic sites/images/web pages that help problem solve issues as best as they can) so if anyone wants to know the source just ask. Other than that, as long as that information is helpful to the Thread or OP, it serves its purpose and see no reason to add extra script by identifying it's source. I think that also represents a very wide cross section of members that post here.

To my71olds, I sincerely apologize for the wrong information I posted from the WAC site. I hope you will still be finally able to identify your engine using the links to the CO thread I installed from 2blu442's helpful engine identification photos, or other sources.

61reoldsman

Alan -I have that very page printed out and in a binder for my Olds engine details ,it's perfect for reference for when you looking through ad postings on Kijiji or Ebay.You can quickly determine what the specs are of engines when people post them for sale.

my71olds

If the casting code say is 395558 and I see that in three places with two having the same cast ID code am I stuck? Where is the cast ID code located? I am going to check it all tomorrow. Thanks

joe_padavano

I'm not sure of your question, but the block casting number is only in one place, on the "shelf" above the water pump, next to the oil fill tube. You'll likely need to clean the crud off to read it. Each of the heads will have a casting number above the two center exhaust ports, but this is the head casting number, not the block number.

Allan R

From 68-76 the 395558 2 block was the common Oldsmobile 350 block.

As was shown in permalink 4 above, that's where you check to see if the engine is original to your car. That stamping pad is usually crudded up with gunk over the years, so clean it off with degreaser (NOT sandpaper or abrasive). The stampings there are listed in order of Division (3=Olds), followed by YEAR (2=72, 3=73 etc) then a LETTER (indicates production factory (M=Lansing, Z=Freemont, R=Arlington, F=Framingham). Last 6 numbers will be the last 6 numbers on the cars VIN, IF the engine is original to the car. This should be easy for you to determine.

As Joe said, there's only 1 block casting number on the engine - on the 'shelf' behind the water pump. That's also where you'll find a bung for the oil pressure switch/idiot light - just to the right of the block casting.

wmachine

Guys it would be nice if you tell the OP where this information (and much more) is so he can can find out more for himself.
m71olds, this is at Wild About Cars

http://wildaboutcarsonline.com/cgi-b...aldisplayed=50

http://wildaboutcarsonline.com/cgi-b...=9970399476565

Wild About Cars. http://wildaboutcars.com. An information supersource, especially Oldsmobile. More Olds content than anywhere else on the internet and continuing to grow.
You'll find Chassis Service Manuals, Product Information Manuals (AKA Assembly Manuals), Inspector's Manuals, and other documents that will contain this and much much more.
Dealer Brochures, magazine ads and articles, and the Automotive History Preservation Society library growing daily.
Free to join, free to learn

Octania

There is some serious bullshed in that engine list

have not gone over the whole thing, because my new dishwasher STILL has not installed itself, but let's start with

1) all 395558 350 blocks are #2 large ID, unless a photo appears to the contrary. 68-76.

2) The "3A" block was NOT used in Hurst/Olds only.

3) There is NO SUCH THING and the solid main web 403, I don't care what the casting ID is.... again, until and unless a real non-bullshed photo appears to prove otherwise. My 10 year search culminating in a million dollar reward says that there is no such thing as a SMW 403. That was laid to rest 02APR2000.... 13 years ago now.

Let's stop the spread
of all the Bullshed.

Allan R

The photograph I posted showing the details of the stamping pad is courtesy of John MacNeel (2blu442) on this site. He has compiled a valuable picture history of castings and stamping pad location on This Thread Well worth the OP's time to visit and review since he is having some difficulty identifying his engine.

my71olds

68-74 395558 2 block

oil filler tube # 1345436 (so based on what I read the #1 means a 1971

I searched for the stamping pad in the location above but no luck will keep trying

Thanks for your wealth of information

MDchanic

Allan, I'm sorry, but you don't have a choice.

The image you showed is the top half of this file:
http://wildaboutcarsonline.com/membe...ID_Chart_4.pdf
which is stored on wildaboutcars.com, and which is their copyright material.

If you use it, you have to attribute it.
If you don't it's plagiarism (which is immoral) and possibly copyright infringement (which is illegal).

He even asked you nicely.

- Eric

TripDeuces

Gawd, I saw a 260 V8 listed. I think I'm blind now!

my71olds

The stamping pad is not there so not sure if there is another way to confirm its the iriginal block. Oh well I will move on.

Thanks

MDchanic

It's there if the engine says 395558. Keep looking.

- Eric

Allan R

To see the stamping pad, you might have to use a mirror. The surface that the numbers are stamped onto face downwards at about a 60° angle. Also the power steering bracket may hinder your ability to see it.

Eric, that's just Horse Hockey. Anything on the free net is free and a lot of the info contributed on this site comes from sources other than the one you're alluding to, but no one rears up and says "that could be illegal". It's car stuff. I think the ONLY thing they allude to is info can't be copied and redistributed/printed etc for the purpose of profit; and I'm not doing that. I could care less about the request to advertise that site, whether it comes from you or someone else.

Do YOU post credits for the images you don't own but still link to this site? Didn't think so. Why are you so concerned about the links or images I post?

Most of the stuff 'they' put in the Oldsmobile Brand library is from GM publications (original or reproduced - which explains some of the lower quality images) advertisements or member contributions which they scan and save. Do they give credit to the brand or GM for doing that? I'm not going to waste any more time arguing the point.

69442C

I'm 100% on board with Allan on this one. Eric, seriously....plagiarism? This would be if Allan said he created the following table over the years and offered it to the OP. Clearly, not even remotely close to what was done. The basis of CO is for people to share their knowledge and information and at times, this information is obtained from the Internet. WAC is a free site to anyone who wants to join and the information is only protected from someone trying to sell it for profit or use it in a manner in which someone would claim the info to be their own. The purpose of WAC is for people to freely obtain information they need. Sharing that free information with someone else is perfectly acceptable and is not immoral or illegal. I see examples of information being shared all the time on this site that comes from other sources and I can't recall ever seeing anyone offering a footnote on where the information was found. And as you know Eric, you gather a lot of information from the internet and share it with others who have a question or a problem. Would this mean that anyone that would ever use a motor mount part number that may have come from the info Joe P posted in the past be required to acknowledge that they gathered it from Joe's thread? What if I gave an idea on how to solve a problem and I saw someone else share that with another person on CO without giving me due credit, should I jump all over them and forbid them from sharing my idea? If so, then we should probably just shut down CO and every other Internet site that uses threads.

Sadly, someone was looking for a way to identify if the engine in his car was original to the car or not. Allan used info to help this cause and this turns into comments about morality and legality. Let's just stick to helping everyone and CO will be much better for it.
Brian

MDchanic

When I post an image that isn't mine, I generally link back to the original file on the original site, I don't download it and modify it first.
If I do use an image of any significance, I state where it came from.
I have used a few photos of engines that I didn't take, in order to illustrate the locations of parts, etc., but the photos did not have any particularly identifiable attributes - they could have been any engine.
In the case of advice, I try very hard to keep it to things I have personally done (or seen done, sometimes), so that the information I am conveying is mine. That is why I do not try to answer a lot of the questions posted: I may know in a general sense what to do, but I do not have direct experience of it.

Regardless, this is something different. The image in question is a compilation of information, organized and tabulated, which you neither researched not compiled. In cases such as this (my post on the flow rates of exhaust pipe, for instance) I always attribute the information to its source. To do otherwise is to imply that I discovered or generated the information myself, which I did not.

If you give me a great idea for removing some part, which is ingenious and unique, then if I have occasion to give that idea to someone else years later, I will say, "Allan on Classic Olds gave me this idea years ago." If I can't remember exactly where I got it by then, I will say, "Some guy on the internet posted about this years ago..."
It is simply wrong to present information as though it is your own when it is not.

As far as the legalities go, obviously WAC has made information available for free, so they're not going to try to go after you for posting it.
However, the pages for Chassis Service Manual downloads state "This section of the Factory Service Manual is offered for your personal research and educational use only - as an Auto History Preservation Society Library Member." and the page where you got your image has no statement regarding appropriate use.
It is reasonable to infer that this information is intended, as the site specifies, "... for your personal research and educational use only..." which precludes republishing it.

The point is not, specifically, the legality, but rather the inappropriateness of posting information that someone else has taken time to research, and more time to lay out in an organized manner, and still more time to post within a specific (rather Byzantine) hierarchy on a web page, without simply giving credit where it is due, and then compounding that sin by refusing to give credit when politely asked to by the owner and compiler of the information.

It may be that you never received any education on the proper attribution of non-original work, which is certainly no fault of yours, but nonetheless, having had this come up, one would think it incumbent on you to identify the sources of any work that you might post that you did not yourself create.

I am sorry, but this is a very important issue, both here and in the broader world, and when I see it, I feel obliged to address it.

- Eric

MDchanic

Not at all. Publishing information that you did not crate without citing the creator is plagiarism, and would certainly gotten you expelled from my college or university.


And when it is specific information from a specific site, such as the flow information I mentioned above, I cite my sources.


Yes. Absolutely.


No. That would be discourteous.
That's why I'm jumping all over Allan, rather than WMachines - I have no personal stake in this, so I can bring it up purely as a matter of principle.

- Eric

wmachine

Thanks Eric. There is no legal issue here, because the the information posted on Wild About Cars is for all to use with no strings attached. Allan has the right to use it and not acknowledge or credit Wild About Cars as being the source of his information. But you are right, there are other issues here. If he is that self centered and self serving not to share his sources, that is nothing more than a reflection on him. He calls it advertising for the site. He doesn't see it as standing in the way of someone else learning. Maybe he is afraid of someone knowing as much as he does.
My attempts are to lead enthusiasts to the site to obtain information and learn themselves. Not to feed them, but teach them to fish. We know there are detractors, but that really doesn't deter nor discourage us. We know what we are doing and it is for now and future generations. We're doing it because we know it is the right thing to do. Sure, we appreciate the support, but we are not swayed by malcontents.

And to further explain what you've been so observant to point out, Wild About Cars makes a big distinction between compiled information (like this aforementioned engine data) and "factory" information. What is in the AHPS is documents. Nothing compiled or possibly skewed by opinion, or anything else. Pure documents. All of the compiled information and such is in the Tech section on the Wild About Cars side. Not be be confused with the documents. This is a huge distinction. The Tech information is always a work in progress. Constantly subject to correction, improvement, and expansion. And as Chis pointed out above, this engine data need some tuning up. Good example.

wmachine

You're right, Chris, we do need to get this tweaked. I'd like to say that SMW info was there just to get your attention, but as good an idea as that is, it is not true. Give us a hand and let's get this updated! As I mentioned in my last post, the Tech section is always a work in process.

Allan R

Absolutely what I said in the first place

Absolutely not true. You assume a lot with your statements and you don't even know me. There are lots of people on this site who I have helped learn and shared information with. I'm hardly afraid of someone knowing what I know or more, and I'll be the first to apologize for and retract any wrong information if I post it. In fact I learn a lot from others as well. Your smears are trolling/slander (which you appear to be misguidedly stating as facts) and are a direct conflict with CO policy regarding 'trolling'. Something you acknowledged and agreed not to do when you accepted the terms and conditions of membership when you signed up on this site. I would appreciate if you would stop.

cdrod

Let's just stick to helping everyone, and leave egos and pissing contests for other forums. Amen!

MDchanic

1. I have been thinking about this, as I try to be sure that I don't cast aspersions lightly, and I realize that I have not been living up to my own standards in this matter.
Specifically, I have posted a lot of pictures and text clips taken from various CSMs without specifically saying that that was where they were from.
After consideration, the reason was that it was "obvious" that that was what they were, but, to be honest, it is not obvious at all.
Because of this, I will be noting, generally, that anything I get from the CSM is from the CSM, though I will not be strictly citing the exact manual, as the majority of pictures repeat identically over more than a decade. I will also note that they came from WAC.
I will append older posts as I encounter them, but I will not be trying to find them all, as my middle name is not Sisyphus.

2. Kurt, I believe, based on your posts, that you are PO'd at Allan for his response to you, but I think you will agree that your post last night was out of line.
Regardless, I will say that though I don't think it was cool to take that material without giving the source, Allan is a stand-up guy, and certainly not deserving of any personal insult from anybody, and that, while I personally took exception to that one thing that he did, I in no way agree with your characterizations of him, which were outside the bounds of decorum expected on this site.

- Eric

cdrod

I'm a little confused by this engine chart. I have a spare 350 block that I pickup last year for $100. It's sitting in my shop, and it's a 395558-2 block. Here's where I'm confused. According to the chart, 395558-2 blocks were made from '68-'74, and '74-'76 blocks should be cast with 395558-5.
My block, it is a '76 motor: VIN stamp 36M368222. But the casting number is 395558-2. Any thots?

Octania

Read my input above. Photo proof to the contrary not existing, ALL 350 ENGINES 1968 thru 1976 are casting ID
395558 2

"HD 403" indeed. Wow.

joe_padavano

Chris,

I believe the HD stands for "Highly Dubious".

Allan R

Yes, I think Octania identified the error on the chart. I simply didn't realize it was an error. Your proof is in the fact you have a 76 Olds 350 with proper castings that matches what Octania identified as being proper. I trust his comment. Sorry I posted wrong information from the Tech Section of Wild About Cars. That appears to be the source of your confusion.

I have changed the permalink info where you originally got that quote so it's not there any more to cause confusion for anyone else surfing the site who may assume that chart as accurate and reliable (as I did). I'm sure WAC will react to their mistake and clear up the confusion in a timely manner.

my71olds

Thanks to everyone's help I have confirmed that its the original block. Hope I did not cause any issues with the discussion. Now its time to start the process of rebuilding her.

wmachine

I did not say that Allan was not a stand up guy. I specifically questioned his motives for not not only for not giving credit to WAC, but as he said "I refuse to advertise for your site." That strikes me a quite personal and I stated why. But what under scrutiny now is what I said, not what I questioned and the question is still unanswered. Interesting how that got lost in the shuffle. If there is a "stand up" reason for that, I have yet to hear it.

Allan R

Glad to hear you've found the information you were looking for. Good luck with the re-build! I hope you plan to start a fresh thread on the rebuild so this one can be left to normal site attrition (non use). And again; very sorry for the side discussion that occurred. I want to respond to some of wmachines allegations one last time and that's it.

I have yet to see a question in your comments; all I see is smears. And since you've publicly stated in a stand alone sentence:
I think you're beating a dead horse here.

BTW I DID go back and give Wild About Cars credit for the bad information that I trusted and posted in an attempt to help a fellow CO member. See permalink 12. I also went back to the other posts and corrected/deleted the bad information I obtained and posted from your Tech Section data information at Wild About Cars.

It's pretty clear to even a blind bat that many of your posts quoting me have a personal bull's eye attached. IMO the way you continually seem to put that on display is unfortunate; so I guess the only thing that might make sense for you to understand is by replying in kind.

I prefer to help people by giving them direct information related to their query. You prefer to tell them to look it up. You have your 'style'. I have mine. It's not a contest to be more right, it's about helping fellow Olds enthusiasts. It's my prerogative to recommend a site; or not. You seem to infer that it's my obligation, which is not correct. And while MDchanic may think it's uncool for me not to give you credits or references, he's entitled to his opinion and I don't hold that against him.

IMO Wild About Cars site is NOT very user friendly in its navigation - especially to first time or occasional members. The only reason I can find anything there is I've spent countless hours searching. And that's simply because I have the time to do so; many people looking for answers don't have that luxury. Anyway, WAC navigation I've commented on before and I don't think it has improved. Others on this site have also echoed that same issue. So if I can find something quickly and give it to someone expediently, I don't care what site it comes from if it serves the purpose.

To use your analogy: You keep right on teaching people to fish; that's no guarantee they'll catch anything. I'll just keep feeding them because I enjoy doing this, and it makes them happy when they're fed.

I really don't see the point of any continued discussion with you here, and again, you've managed to turn another perfectly good thread into a wasteland of bitterness and slander that makes the average reader wonder if this is a site worth visiting. You can have the last word if you want - I could care less.