Bloo

Members
  • Content count

    685
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Bloo

  1. If it is Packard (and it probably is), they engine was made in 320, 352, and 374ci. Packard sold the 320 to AMC for sure, and maybe also the 352.
  2. Cork. The modern replacement is.....cork.

    The modern recommendation, as far as I know is to replace the cork with nitrophyl. That is the stuff they made carburetor floats out of in the 80s (that all sunk). Maybe it is better. I am not a fan of it and have not tried it in this application.
  3. Cork. The modern replacement is.....cork.

    Indeed. I researched this, and came to the same conclusion as trimacar. I sunk my original floats in ethanol-laced gasoline for about a week in a coffee can to see if they would absorb the fuel. The original shellac was long gone. After a week, they were fine so I put them back in. Some folks on another forum insisted they would sink. I was convinced they wouldn't. That was fine for 6 months, then apparently they sunk. The story isn't over yet as I haven't pulled the sender out to do a post mortem. A full tank reads about 1/4 now. I think you will find Indian Head Shellac is still...... wait for it.... Shellac. You can also get Shellac at a woodworking store, either pre-dissolved or in flakes. It has a shelf life, and lasts much longer dry, so the flakes are going to be the best Shellac. I would not use any shellac in a fuel system today. It isn't going to stay there anyway. What happens when it gets in the float valve? Or the valve guides? Some of the sealers used today are 1) gas tank sealer 2) super glue 3) q-dope (polystyrene) 4) POR-15. There are probably others I am forgetting. There are old threads, lots of them. I tried polystyrene. The gas washed it off. Bobs Automobilia has sealed floats. I have no idea what they are sealed with, or whether it will wear through after spinning on the wire arm for a while, or whether a little worn-through spot matters. As trimacar pointed out, It is a closed cell material and it SHOULDN'T matter. I have not tried polyurethane. Maybe a brand new piece of cork would be good enough......
  4. Thoughts on Brake Linings

    After seeing that Auburn brake I'm going to have to look at the ones on my 36 Pontiac. They could be like the Auburn.
  5. Thoughts on Brake Linings

    That doesn't sound right. I'm no engineer, but I have never seen a Bendix style (moving pivot) system that did not have a short leading shoe. I have worked on plenty of cars that were too old to have self adjusters. I am not necessarily trying to talk you out of the long shoe. (I am assuming you have a moving pivot system because I haven't seen them.)
  6. Thoughts on Brake Linings

    I had the opposite experience. The "asbestos free" linings of the 90s worked better than anything I ever had, and especially on drum brakes, They did have one annoying quirk, expanding as they broke in. Are asbestos brakes banned in Canada? They were banned down here (US), but I don't think they still are.
  7. That doesn't look like the Rambler v8. I'm guessing Packard.
  8. Thoughts on Brake Linings

    A 41 Olds is probably Bendix-style "servo action" brakes. The pivot point at the bottom is movable. The leading shoe helps apply force to the trailing shoe. Unlike Fords of the period, the short shoe is always the leading shoe. A picture of the shoes on the backing plate would show if the pivot is movable. Many Pontiacs and Buicks of the period have this, but not Chevrolets.
  9. Steering Gear lubricant change

    Is there even a seal down there on your car? I don't think my '36 has one. I put that penrite stuff in and it stopped leaking. Straight grease is not a good plan. It does not lubricate well because it wipes off and never flows back. After a time, it may migrate up the steering shaft and come out the top of the steering column.
  10. Dangerous hydraulic jack

    True enough, but as others have stated, that jack is missing a crucial part (the saddle), not anything special. I remember jacks like that. The saddle just lifts out of the hole you can see. Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, and there were not harbor freight stores everywhere with low clearance "racing" jacks perennially on sale, SOP on a really low car was to take the saddle off (so you could get the jack under), jack the car up maybe four inches, set it back down on a wooden block, take the jack out, put the saddle back in, and jack the rest of the way up. Yes, it is extremely unstable without the saddle.
  11. Plymouth, Dodge '57-66 engine search

    JMHO... That is PROBABLY all true. I do know that 62-up wideblock (poly) through 5.2/5.9 magnum all bolt to the trans and flexplate the same way. I dont know about the 4.7. If it is the same as a magnum, then yes. If the factory spacer is 2 inches (I think it is) you will need to space it out at least that far. You may have to go farther, because IIRC that crank flange didnt look like a later one. The aluminum torqueflite's torque converter registers on the crankshaft with a big round bump. If the old crank doesn't have this, or it is a different size, you will have to make it register and center. If it is too far forward or back after you do that then you will have to change the thickness of the adapter. Then (I think) you are going to need an 8-bolt flexplate that didn't ever exist. You could make it. Maybe a 426 hemi one would work, but I wouldn't bet on it. I am guessing everything you need is available today from the guy JackM mentioned. I wonder how thick it is? I wonder what it costs? No matter how you cut it, you are still going to lose about 2 inches because of the crank sticking out. (but you might gain a little back because the bore spacing is closer on a dodge hemi block) With the 318, the parts on the front of the engine all basically interchange through LA (at least). For instance the water pump lower hose connection switched sides in 1970, so for a post-1970 vehicle you can just change the water pump. The timing cover is about the same on all of them. It occurred to me that you could PROBABLY (I haven't tried this) bolt or almost-bolt all the front of engine parts (timing cover, pulleys, balancer, serpentine belt, etc. from a 5.2 magnum to the front of a poly 318 to shorten it and help get it into the Dakota. The similarity of the magnum block to an LA block (and thus the 318 poly) suggests this is possible. Anything that bolts to the heads or intake would have to be modified of course. I have a sneaking hunch you could save 4 inches or more overall (including the 2 inches at the bellhousing). Where is the sump and where do you need it to be? That stuff all interchanges on 318poly - LA318 - 5.2Magnum. Old 318 passenger cars are all center sump AFAIK. What does the Dakota have? Pan, pickup, oil pump, etc from a 5.2/318 (probably not 5.9) magnum out of a Dakota will probably bolt to a 318 poly, if it is even different. They might be the same stuff. Front sump pans also exist. I had one on a 1962 318 that came out of a box van or a mail truck or something. That allows you to put a 318 in a Ford . It sure looks to me like with that early engine you are going to spend a fortune doing stuff that would bolt together otherwise with a few parts from the pick n pull.
  12. Rustyiron

    AFB versions also exist. They are the older, narrower AFB bolt pattern. I would expect a WCFB version to also use this bolt pattern (narrow AFB) rather than the earliest (oldest smallest) WCFB pattern. Four barrels existed from 1956 until 1963 or so, maybe even 1964. Dual quads also existed in 1957 (WCFB) and 1958 (AFB). All 1965 and 1966 were 2 barrel when they left the factory. If a 1966 is a four barrel, the manifold came off of something older. AFAIK all the manifolds interchange. I don't remember any casting numbers. From a good picture I might be able to make an accurate guess whether it is the manifold rustyiron2 needs. That is almost certainly the wrong engine family, but it is worth a look. The one rustyiron2 needs has the water crossover and thermostat area cast into the manifold, and the manifold closes up the top of the engine with a couple of cork strips at the ends, just like an LA engine or a small block Chevy. Intake ports will be evenly spaced (in other words not in pairs).
  13. Overdrive Information 38 Buick...

    Yes. Nash... and large-body Ramblers through 1966. There are some issues: The torque tube is a whole different game in a Nash, the whole drivetrain is rigid except for a little rubber. It doesn't look to me like it would be that hard to adapt to me, but it is a completely different deal. There is no ball back there like a Buick or a Chevrolet or a Ford. I read a posting on some other forum from a guy who had done it. He said it was much more work than he expected. Custom machining for sure. Another problem arises if you need a mid 30s style floorshift. The three transmissions that commonly come stock with Borg Warner overdrive are Borg Warner T-86 (light duty), Borg Warner T-85 (heavy duty), and the Saginaw 3 speed. Of these only the T-86 even has a top cover, and it didn't come with both overdrive and a top shifter on the same transmission. It is possible to get a top shifter on one of these (jeep shifter IIRC), but you have to leave part of the side shift mechanism in and cut one of the old shift forks down to make the reverse lockout work for the overdrive. Some top shifters wont work because the overdrive case is in the way. There is more info about this on the Studerbaker Drivers Club forums. It is possible to make it work. It has been done. On the other hand if you have a column shifter, there are more options. The third thing you are likely to run into is that the overdrive transmission is longer, and on many old cars there is an x-member or some important part of the frame in the way. The torque tube also locates the axle fore/aft in a Buick. You have to add suspension members, usually ones from a Chevrolet truck to get rid of the torque tube.. People have done it successfully. I wouldn't. Chevrolets don't have that trouble, but the springs are not designed for the torque, and they are also pivoted/hinged at the axle tube. Something would have to change there. I wouldn't do that either. Fords have a transverse leaf spring and relied on the torque tube (and wishbone) to keep things from flopping around.... The trouble is right away you find yourself building a whole new car (whole drivetrain and suspension from the flywheel back). I am building a higher-geared third member for my 36 Pontiac. I went with the ring and pinion change because it changes the car the least. It is expensive. It is not near done. I agree with Jim Nelson's assessment that overdrive is cheaper (at least at Lloyd's prices). If I could go back I would probably go that way. There is one elephant in the room, however. You may need a third member rebuild anyway (it is more likely than you think). Then, you would have the third member cost on top of the overdrive . I have taken 3 rear axles apart within the last year (1936 Pontiac/Chevrolet). GM used ball bearings on the differential case back in the 30s. They weren't really up to the task. They used a Hyatt bearing on the pinion that, due to the design, has nothing to keep it located in the case. Buick axles are very similar in design, but larger. They also have a more powerful engine attached. All 3 of these axles I tore down were working, but very close to catastrophic failure. 3 axles later I still don't have enough good parts to build my third member. I have a NORS ring and pinion (3.82 to replace 4.89) and NORS bearings (these old weird bearings are out of production and really expensive). I still do not have a good differential case to rivet my new ring gear to. If anyone has 35-36 Pontiac or 35-36 Chevrolet Master or 35-39 Chevrolet 1/2 ton rear axle parts laying around, feel free to PM me.
  14. Plymouth, Dodge '57-66 engine search

    Yes. It all fits. A trans and LA trans is the same thing (62 and later).
  15. Plymouth, Dodge '57-66 engine search

    And to answer your question more directly, I don't know exactly what the factory adapter fixes. It does indeed take up the space made by the extended crank. I don't remember if it is just a spacer or if it actually changes the bolt pattern. The extended crank flange is still not threaded and has the wrong number of holes. I did at one time have an engine with a later (post-62) crank in a 1960(?) 318 block, so I know you can interchange cranks. I never had it bolted to an aluminum torqueflite, only a clutch, and I just can't remember if the bellhousing bolt pattern matched the later 318.
  16. Plymouth, Dodge '57-66 engine search

    The torqueflite he refers to is the cast iron one. It is different. The adapter he refers to is part of the stock chrysler cast iron torqueflite (or powerflite) setup. They all had that (except the first year or two of the chrysler hemi, those had an extended casting where the bellhosing connects, and are all by themselves, as they predate even the cast iron powerflite and torqueflite). With enough aftermarket adapters you can make anything work, I don't know what is available today. I do know that the old stuff (61 back) wont bolt to the new stuff (62 up) with factory parts. Back in the day, that meant custom machining parts, and probably still does. Most guys didn't have that much money.... An engine swap of a pre-62 engine into something else generally meant keeping the cast iron torqueflite and the pushbuttons, and no "park" A friend of mine had a chrysler 392 hemi in a GMC pickup, pushbuttons and all. The 62 and later aluminum torqueflites have park, and can be pushbutton or linkage shifted, depending on year. Any 62 or later trans with an A-engine bolt pattern bolts to any 62 or later A, poly, LA, or 5.2/5.9 magnum engine, clear into the 90s, and probably beyond. One must only pay attention to the fact that some much later engines are externally balanced, for instance a 360 needs a torque converter with some balance weights on it IIRC. That converter will slip onto any trans back to 1967, and on back to 1962 if you change the transmission input shaft. A 62 or later poly will just bolt up to the transmission like it was meant to go there. The motor mount bosses might even work, as they are in the same place as LA engines. IIRC 5.2/5.9 "magnum" engines have the LA engine mounting bosses cast into the side, plus another set of bosses for some later applications (jeep?). I forgot which was used in the dakota. If the dakota used the LA mounts, the poly might literally bolt in, outside of exhaust issues, steering interference, etc. (the poly is wider than a magnum or an LA).
  17. Plymouth, Dodge '57-66 engine search

    The 62-66 (and the 58) 318 look like this. Notice the shape of the valve cover, and that the lifter valley is closed up by the intake manifold. This is the engine of which I speak. It is a 66 in the picture. You can see the flexplate (just like an LA flexplate) in the pic. These 62-66 engines will bolt to any transmission you can bolt a 273 - LA318 - 340 - 360 to. Here is an "old style" poly head. It is what the 270 probably is, and is a whole different engine than the 318 above. These are poly heads to fit on an early dodge hemi block. There was also a poly head to fit on the early chrysler hemi block. Both look like this, but the chrysler is physically bigger than the dodge. Note that the shape of the scallops at the bottom of the valve cover are different than the 318s we have been discussing, and also that the valve cover bolts are in a different location. A dead giveaway is that the valley under the intake manifold has a pan like an early hemi, unlike the later engine (318 etc) where the top of the engine is closed up by the intake manifold.
  18. Plymouth, Dodge '57-66 engine search

    If you are going to put it up against that modern transmission, you need a 62-66 318 (or a 62-67 313 or 318 if you happen to stumble across something that is Canadian built). It should literally bolt up. Anything earlier is going to be a headache. No need to explain. The "wideblock" (poly) 318 is my all time favorite engine. The 270 is probably the "oldstyle" poly based on the hemi block, I cant remember for sure. Either way it isn't set up to hook to a modern torqueflite. It wont work easily. The 58 is the newer style poly, and is almost what you want, but it wont hook to the trans either. It is set up for a cast iron torqueflite or powerflite. If I remember correctly, the crank flange sticks out about 2 inches too far, has the wrong number of holes, and bolts to the torque converter directly (bolts in backwards) with no flex plate. The cast iron torqueflite is pushbutton and has no "park", instead has a drum type parking brake at the rear of the transmission. It is possible that the 58 would work if you put a later crank in. Even an LA-318 crank fits, but the LA-318 crank is usually cast, while the poly is forged. A 340 forged crank also fits. I think the piston weights are different, so you would probably have to rebalance if you used the LA-318 or the 340. The thing I cannot remember for sure is if the bolt pattern changed at the bellhousing. It STILL might not hook up... or maybe it would. If the 58 has dual quads or some other special parts, you can use them on a later poly. You can basically use everything from the 58. The only difference that matters is the fact that it wont hook to the trans you want. Hold out for a 62-66 318. You'll be glad you did.
  19. Plymouth, Dodge '57-66 engine search

    Something to be aware of if you don't already know, there are 2 distinct engine families that people refer to as "poly". One is based on the old hemi blocks, and the other is the one that survived until 1966 (1967 in Canada). The newer design was introduced in 1956 in Plymouth only, and was used exclusively in Plymouth from 1956-1958. There were several displacements (including 318). However, the older design was also used in Plymouth in 1955 and 1956. A 1956 Plymouth could have either engine design. The new design did not appear in Dodge until 1959 (326ci). This replaced the older Dodge 325 (based on a hemi block). Actually both of these were 325ci, but Chrysler called the new one a 326 to "avoid confusion". Avoiding confusion on this subject is impossible LOL. From 1960 onward, the engines were all the newer design, and all 318s (except for 313s in Canada until about 1964 or 65). A big change came in 1962 when the aluminum transmissions came out. 1962 and later engines will bolt to A-block 727s, 904s, a833 bellhousings and so on. 1961 and earlier will not. The crankshaft is wrong for sure, and there might be a problem with the bellhousing pattern as well. You might get a better response if you tell us what you are going to put it in, or at least what sort of a transmission you plan to bolt it to. Best of luck in your search.
  20. Ford 390 behind the core plug!

    Not a foundry expert either, but it is not unusual to see remains of the casting core. Ford did get better at cleaning them out as time went on. Several years ago I got a so much sand out of a 61 352 block it filled a coffee can.
  21. 193? at the Santa Barbara Fiesta

    I thought that at first too, but then I started counting grille bars. it is sort of hard to count, but I got to a higher number just counting down to the bumper on the OP's picture than the '38 has altogether. I think it's a 37.
  22. 1954 century sedan. GA to NC

    Wow... I had no idea it would be that easy to get the parts. In the past I have had to adapt bolts for newer starters to some really old ones. You can take it apart and look to really see the damage. The copper disc eats a spot off one side of the bolt head. On some starters it is possible to turn the head around backwards to get a new surface. More commonly someone has already done this, and both sides are gone. Here is how it is supposed to work: There is a little coil spring that "loads" the copper disc (it is not solidly connected to the solenoid). When the solenoid pulls in, and after it engages the gear, but before it bottoms in the bore, it hits a little rod that moves the copper disc. The copper disc hits the bolts, and the little spring compresses, but not very much, as the solenoid hits the bottom of it's bore. The spring tension holds the disc against the bolts while you crank. It is only compressed maybe .080" (guessing because I don't know the exact number). If the spring was not in the design, the solenoid bottoming and the disc bottoming on the copper bolts would have to match exactly, and it probably wouldn't last a week. As it is, the spring tension holds the disc tightly against the copper bolts as the heads wear. Over time, the heads get further away, and eventually the solenoid bottoms before the disc touches the bolts. Near the end, it is really a crapshoot whether the car will start or not.
  23. OBD I Buick check engine light on 90%

    GM's fuel injection of the time is almost the same system as CCC. You can ignore all my comments above about duty cycle and dwell. You use the same scan tool and the same troubleshooting methods more or less. All the hardware looks about the same. Ignore what the code says it is, and investigate why the code set. It is all inputs and outputs (sensors and actuators), just some different ones. The values can be looked at on the scan tool just like CCC. For instance, to make a decision on how much fuel to inject, once warmed up, the ECU needs either how much air (mass airflow systems) or the Manifold Absolute Pressure (MAP) and the engine speed (speed density systems). These systems move the mixture rich to lean and back quickly in closed loop just like CCC does, they just have to vary the width of the injector pulse slightly to accomplish it.
  24. OBD I Buick check engine light on 90%

    I wouldn't call them "false positives". Generally speaking, if you have a code on one of these cars, something is broken, and probably really broken. You have to troubleshoot. You cannot read a table and replace that part, (well ... you can, but it wont work). I think we all probably agree on this and are just stating it differently. One thing to keep in mind, and NEVER lose sight of, is that a code does not necessarily mean a problem with the electronics or sensors. These cars get all the same vacuum leaks, burned valves, ignition misfires, bad carburetors, etc. that happen on cars with no electronic engine control. Don't get tunnel vision about the electronics. I don't consider the scan tool useless on these either. There may not be many data points, but the ones you see are the same ones the ECU sees and makes it's decisions with. I doubt I ever let one of these cars roll through my bay without plugging in the scan tool. Don't think "oxygen sensor", think "what is wrong with the signal?" too high? too low? not crossing over? Ok, now look at the other values (in the scan tool) that the ECU is looking at. Are any of them screwed up? Which ones? What could cause the readings I am seeing?
  25. 1954 century sedan. GA to NC

    The worn-out copper bolt problem is typically intermittent. Also, if it were a misadjusted linkage, that could be dependent on temperature and where the flywheel stopped the last time the engine was shut off. For this to happen the starter drive would have to be bottoming out. I'm not sure if that is possible on a 54, but it sure is on a 37. I would sure find a way to check it while the starter is off. The 54 manual wants you to pull the solenoid in with a couple of the cells of a 6v battery IIRC. Thats unlikely. You could probably remove the connection from the solenoid down to the starter motor and just use 12v or 6v I think. On a 37 you can do it by hand, and maybe you could here, too. The whole idea is to push/pull the solenoid in (just the big round part that moves) by the outer diameter of the part that moves, in other words dont push on the linkage. Then, at the starter drive (gear) push back lightly (toward disengage). Measure from the tip of the gear to the surface it could touch. I think its .010-.050 . It should definitely not bottom out hard from solenoid action. So, check that the next time it is off, but if I were betting, it is the copper bolts.