OttoSkorzeny

Does anyone know of an Olds Master Parts List posted online anywhere? A friend is looking for part numbers for some '66 Toronado steering parts in order to check for interchange with another vehicle.

Charlie Jones

There are several catalogs that cover 66 here;

http://wildaboutcarsonline.com/cgi-b...=9980334161483

OttoSkorzeny

Thanks a lot Charlie. That helps a lot.

Charlie Jones

Welcome to classic Olds.
Why don't you post your needs in "parts wanted" there are several members parting out Toronados.

joe_padavano

Welcome and a word of advice about parts books. Use the book with the printing date closest to the date you car was built. As part were superceded or dropped out of the part system, the listings for these parts were also dropped from the parts books. For example, there is a widely-circulated parts book in PDF format that claims to cover model years 1965-1975. Unfortunately this edition was printed in April 1983 and has almost nothing for the 1972-earlier cars, as it only reflects part numbers that were in the system at the time of the printing. For example, this particular edition only lists two big block Olds cylinder head castings, the J heads and the K heads. K heads are shown as the superceded part for all performance applications and the J heads for everything else.

OttoSkorzeny

Thanks you guys.


I'm not in need of parts for my '66 Toro at the moment. A friend who is parting a '66 Toro was looking for part numbers to cross reference with known part numbers for his GMC Motor Home. Basically he wants to keep the stuff that was used on the GMC and get rid of the rest.


Right about using parts books closest to the year of manufacture. I'm familiar with GM's idiotic system for my '56 Cadillac. As you have pointed out, some later production parts carry the same part number as the original part but may not be exactly the same as the original.


An example is the defective pitman arms originally installed on 1959 Cadillacs. Subsequent upgraded pitman arms carry the same part number but have no distinguishing marks on them to allow one to differentiate them from the bad ones.


GM continues this stupid practice as witnessed by the ignition lock fiasco currently going on. The defective switches were replaced with upgraded versions that look identical to the defective ones. The part numbers are the same and there are no markings on the upgraded switches to differentiate them from the defective ones so there is absolutely no way of knowing what switch is on the car or even what switch you get off the parts shelf.


GM is run by morons.

joe_padavano

Don't be too quick to criticize this. I've got decades of experience with the same sort of configuration control issues in the aerospace world. The problem is that if you change the P/N on a part, you then need to revise every single next assembly drawing. Once you do that, you have an effectivity issue where configuration needs to be tied to serial number (or VIN). Paperwork issues like this is only one of the reasons why the DoD buys $600 toilet seats. Unfortunately the press would rather ridicule than inform, and contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin aren't going to publicly say that their customer (the DoD) is the cause of the problem - at least not so long as the DoD pays for the added costs that they create.

OttoSkorzeny

Why not just add a suffix to the part number in the catalogs?


Part #1234 is superseded by Part #1234r


If that makes paperwork too complicated, then wouldn't it at least make sense to mark the upgraded part to differentiate it from the defective one you're replacing?


A technician should be able to tell at a glance whether a defective part is installed on a car or whether the one he just pulled from the parts bin is the upgraded version.


I stand by my slur against GM management.

joe_padavano

i will neither defend nor criticize GM's handling of that particular issue. I will say that you still don't understand the configuration control problem, however. If a P/N changes, even a rev letter, you need to then go back and revise the engineering drawing(s) that use that part. That requires changing the revision letter on all those drawings, which cascades into every subsequent drawing. Believe me when I say that this rapidly gets into serious manhours and cost.

Of course, in the aerospace world, if there's a part found to be defective in design, we purge it from the system and absolutely make the revisions that I just described. Whether or not the GM ignition switch was actually defective is a subject of debate for another thread.

OttoSkorzeny

Would you agree that the revised/upgraded parts that carry the same part number as the defective parts should be marked or stamped in some way so that they may be distinguished from the batch of defective ones?


Surely this would not entail any revisions to drawings or paperwork of any kind. It would certainly make the repair/replacement process easier and less confusing.

joe_padavano

And yet, it does. Say the original P/N is 12345. The revised part number is 12345A. The engineering drawings say 12345. The quality inspector should not allow you to put a different part number in place on the assembly line. Drawings change, assembly procedures change, parts books change, etc.

As I said above, for a part that truly does have a design defect, you absolutely make these changes and purge the defective items from the system.

OttoSkorzeny

That's what I'm saying, leave the part number alone but put a distinguishing feature on the part itself so the mechanic can tell if the vehicle has the defective part installed or if its been replaced with a new one already.


That was the problem with the '59 Cadillacs. Factory installed pitman arms were improperly made and were known by GM to fail. A TSB (or whatever they called it back then) was sent to the dealers alerting them to the problem. Unfortunately, the new, properly made pitman arms looked exactly like the old defective ones.


Mechanics had no way of knowing whether the part on the car or the part in the bin was a new, safe pitman arm or an old defective one.


Dealers today performing the ignition switch replacement are facing the same problem. It's impossible for them to tell by looking at the part on a car whether it's been replaced already or not. Also, the upgraded parts were put into the system along with the defective ones.


A mechanic performing the recall repair might actually be replacing a defective switch with another defective switch. Or worse yet, he may be replacing a switch that had already been replaced with a good switch (maybe auto theft attempt or something) with a defective switch from the parts bin.


Since there's no way to tell any of them apart, it is potentially costing GM more money than it should since some switches may not need to be replaced.