Talk:Oldsmobile 98

message: I question wither the '91 or later model ever came "with the fender skirts that adorn the rear tires."  The wheel cutout was fairly low on this body and was straight on top to align with the bodyside molding, but I feel certain there was never one with an actual skirt fitted.  RivGuySC 19:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Last-generation fender skirts

message: I removed a reference to the supposed "slaughter of 1997", as the article created on that subject was previously deleted as unverifiable material.-Colin Kimbrell 15:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Slaughter of 1997"

message: Any chance of a better photo for this article? The present photo depicts a dirty car and is coupled with a highly unattractive background. How about a nice clean car in a park setting?--207.161.0.237 20:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo

message: This article lists the sixth-gen as a 4-door. Below is a picture of my 1979 2-door Regency. This particular car had the 403 cu-in V-8 with the trailering package with heavy duty suspension and posi-traction differential. It used to pull a quite large camper and did an incredible job. I miss that car. It had more interior space than today's full size SUV's (minus the third row) and the trunk was a cavern.
This picture was taken in 1992 before I sold the car. It had almost 100k miles and still ran perfect. As you can see it was starting to rust though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmyhauser (talk • contribs) 02:05, 9 January 2007
<image deleted>
:You are of course exactly right.  There were coupes all through the first downsized generation, and in fact there was a coupe version of the first front-drive version, although it only lasted a couple of years--I think '85 & '86.  A two-door '85 or '86 98 or Buick Electra is a VERY rare car. RivGuySC 02:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1979 Olds 

message: If ya'all will notice...zooming in on the photo of the "1954 oldsmobile 98" you can see the sign in the window says "original owner 1956 oldsmobile"...Nineteen FIFTY SIX...maybe we oughta change that photo? --Infero Veritas (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Generation Photo 

message: Here are the usual facts for four door models (which can easily be found in sales brochures and data books):
1971-1976
Headroom f/r      39.3/38.2 
Legroom f/r       42.4/41.1 
Shoulder room f/r 64.3/63.4
Luggage cap. (cu. ft.) 22.0  
1977-1984
Headroom f/r      39.3/38.0 
Legroom f/r       42.2/40.9 
Shoulder room f/r 60.6/60.5 
Luggage cap. (cu. ft.) 20.3
The EPA has published annual fuel economy guides since 1978. These guides categorize cars based on "interior space" which is defined as the sum of passenger volume and trunk or cargo volume. For example a midsize car has 110 to 119 cubic feet of interior space and a full size has 120 or more. Passenger volume is computed by finding the product of headroom, legroom, and shoulder room for both front and rear, converting each to cubic feet, rounding to the nearest cubic foot and then summing them. 
For example the 1977-1984 Oldsmobile 98 has 39.3x42.2x60.6 = 100,502.7 cubic inches of passenger room in front. Dividing this by 1728 cubic inches per cubic feet yields 58.2 cubic feet of front passenger room. It has 38.0x40.9x60.5 = 94,029.1 cubic inches of passenger room in rear. Dividing this by 1728 cubic inches per cubic feet yields 54.4 cubic feet of passenger room. Rounding to the nearest foot and adding them yields 112 cubic feet of passenger volume.
Now turn to any 1978-1984 EPA fuel economy guide and what you'll usually find is this for a 4 door Oldsmobile 98: 
BODY TYPE/INTERIOR SPACE PASSENGER/TRUNK OR CARGO(CU.FT.) 4DR-112/20
EPA fuel economy guides obviously did not exist in 1971-1976 but repeating this calculation for a 1971-1976 Oldsmobile 98 yields 120 cubic feet of passenger volume. Thus the interior space of a four door 1977-1984 Oldsmobile 98 is 112 + 20 = 132 cubic feet whereas the interior space of a four door 1971-1976 Oldsmobile 98 is 120 + 22 = 142 cubic feet. Given that the ranges between size categories in the EPA guides is 10 cubic feet a 10 cubic foot difference is hypothetically sufficient to put them in entirely different size categories.  
The main reason for the difference is clearly shoulder room and the difference between 64.3 inches of shoulder room and 60.6 inches is dramatically obvious to anyone who has seen both cars. It's also why it's width that makes a roomy car roomy and not length.
This also underscores the fact you cannot shorten a car by nearly foot, make it narrower by over 3 inches, lose over 800 pounds and not lose interior room.
I know that the GM ads of the time pushed the idea that the 1977 full size cars were just as roomy despite the drastic downsizing. This usually involved mentioning (trivial) increases in headroom or legroom from the previous year. (Interestingly, by odd coincidence, most full size GM models experienced correspondingly small decreases in headroom or legroom in the two years before the downsized models were unveiled.) However, nobody took it seriously then because anyone could see that there was a substantial decrease in room. And besides all of the interior dimensions were published in the sales brochures and data books for anyone to see.
I can only guess that someone has an agenda and is bent on promoting 33 year old sales propaganda. It is a vain hope of mine that wikipedia will someday be a source of factual historical automotive information. 
Sadowski (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  1977-1984 Were Not "Just As Roomy Inside" As 1971-1976 

message: I made major changes in this page today. I inserted more about the history of the name 98 and divided the generations in a way that was meaningful from an engineering point of view. There are still clearly huge gaps in the article from 1951 through 1964.
Sadowski (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in Generations 

message: Not a major one, fortunately. I've given this a great deal of thought and it does seem that GM had a major redesign of C-bodies in 1942. Thus the first generation of Olds 98 ultimately needs to be split. I would prefer to wait until an unlicensed image of the 1941 Oldsmobile 98 makes itself available (this will also make the need for the change clear) as it will make the infobox and accompanying text look "full". If such an image makes itself available (preferably a 4-door phaeton) I am more than willing and able to fill the text area with detail.
Sadowski (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Year, Another Change in Generations 

message: I went ahead and filled in the text with detail through 1964. But there is still an alarming dearth of images. I've come to the opinion that most of the image uploaders/collectors are opportunists that will not put forth the effort to find the images we truly need. This is very disappointing. Sadowski (talk) 00:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The continuing terrible dearth of images

message: The final pic in the 1960-64 section is captioned 1963.   But it looks like a 1965 model to me! Boscaswell talk 08:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct - it is a 1965 model. I've moved it to the correct section. --Sable232 (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pic caption incorrect? 

message: Just a trim level no need for another article Qwv (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Support - I will merge this in a week or so if no one else opposes it.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks like no objections, and none from me! Klbrain (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Oldsmobile Touring Sedan]] into [[Oldsmobile 98]]