1912Staver

I almost wonder if they are refering to the fact the frame drops for both ends of the rear springs ? Many single drop frames are horizontal all the way to the rear after the the offset at the front mounting of the rear spring.

I am curious Ron. Did Kissel describe their frame as " double drop " ? There might be a small drop towards the front but it looks to be very small compared to the " double drop " frames I have seen on other cars . Stutz vertical 8 for example. On several makes the front section drop is nearly as pronounced as at the rear of your frame.

That's the one . Thanks for the I.D. ! Just the sort of think I could really go for once I get " old and rich ". The old part seems to be happening right on schedule, now if I can only get the rich part to kick in . Ed, I don't suppose you have one of these kicking around that you can't decide whether to part out or save ?

I don't necessarily dislike them. And they are distinctive without a doubt. But somehow I seem to prefer PA's with conventional headlights. But more important is the actual body style. Favorites are roadsters and 5 pass. tourings. I know PA is primarily a luxury car builder, and I like looking at any of them. The quality shows up in absolutely every detail. But if I was ever going to own one , and price was no object , one of the sportier ones would hands down be my choice.

Love that early 20's ? gray and black roadster with the sidemounts and drum headlights. I know the fender headlights are a PA hallmark , but I have never been totally sold on them. At least a few have conventional headlights should I ever be in a position to make the big move up { both quality and price } to PA ownership. Any Idea of what that one actually is , year and model, pretty sure it isn't an 80 but I am no PA expert.

Ed , as usual you are spot on. High tech machines of any stripe are just wonderfull when brand new and for the first few years. After that, wallet look out ! You are going to get flattened at some point as some part of the system goes haywire. I worked on a highly automated ship for a decade. As it got older the repair costs just became staggering. Ship itself still had lots of life left , but it needed a $140 Million, mid life equipment replacent a few years ago. Now it is even more automated / high tech. I wonder how long it will be before the new set up becomes unmaintainable ? I am retired so keeping this plant up and running is thankfully no longer my problem. But someone is going to inherit the same situation I was in in a few more years as things start to fail. And this is marine grade equipment, makes automotive stuff look like a made in China RC toy car. Think Military grade if you are not familiar with modern Marine set ups. Several times we needed to fly Siemens techs over from Germany to sort out deep problems.

I have always been open to what I call sensible modifications. Things like newer 5 speeds replacing 1950's and 60's weak and expensive , 4 speed sports car gearboxes. Or rack and pinion steering conversions on things like TR 3's and older Morgans. The old British worm and peg steering boxes leave a lot to be desired, and parts are in most cases either non existent or extremely expensive. . Specialist small batch production. The factory fitted R& P eventually. Triumph right after the TR3 , on the TR 4. Morgan stayed with a conventional steering box for many years , but even they eventually fitted R&P. I can only see modifications like this as a true improvement. It makes the car much nicer to drive, particularly if you are replacing a badly worn worm and peg box that no one can rebuild without taking out a second mortgage. It can also be a good time to change a R.HD. car to L.H.D.

What's the short falling of 3 x 2 bbl carbs ? The Ford FE factory set up seemed to be decent. But I expect you have a lot more experence with them than I do.

I am thinking more in the Hudson direction. Buick would have a cantilever rear spring. It's sort of hard to tell, but it looks like the rear springs are mounted as to be wider at the rear than the front. Hudson seems to do this consistently . On most makes the springs are very close to parallel. Quite late teens - 1924 or so when most makes were fitting front brakes would be my guess on year.

The older brother of a girl I went to High School with bought a 4 year old 1969 Camaro from a local Dentist who was the original owner. Very plain looking, non metallic medium green, dog dish caps. The 4 speed was a nice option as was the engine option.... A C.O.P.O. 427. Even being the Ford fan I am, I was a bit envious. Pretty nice car for a Chevy, even if it was a bit drab on the outside.

I understand the last Pierce Great Arrow found came from Nigeria, or was it Keyna , or was it a owned by a Sultan, Silver Ghost ...

If it really is a 1913 it probably is a good investment. But the devil will be in the details.

I agree. I have everything but the tank. And my C30 has dual tanks so I could reasonably easily move one over to the Ford. But I don't think the truck will see more that a couple of thousand miles a year , if that even. All the years I have had it ,that's about the most it has been driven . Been sitting for the last 4 years after my wife badly overheated it. She can drive a standard no problem, but this was the first time with a 3 on the tree. Drove it several miles in first gear. I should have been more careful about making sure she could drive it. She had a flat tire on her regular vehicle when I was at work, drove over to pick up her father to change it for her. It still runs , but serious smoke.

Unfortunately I don't. It was sold to me as a good used engine out of a 4 WD F150. I may end up pulling apart the other one I have and see if a light refresh will return it to service. The other one was also a decent running engine , and out of about a 1974 Ford 3/4 ton. But it has been sitting close to 20 years. Between the two I can probably get one good gasoline 300. The days of propane pickups seems to have passed from what I am hearing so far. It came from a friend who drove the truck for several months before deciding it had too much rust and junked it. He gave me the engine as even back then I knew the 360 in my 1966 was going to be a problem. I have owned the 1966 since the mid 1980's and really like it. A pretty decent, Victoria M 100 . Very little rust, but the years are taking their toll. And keep my eyes open for a cheap EFI truck . I saw a few for very reasonable prices 3 or 4 years ago. But they all seem to have at least doubled in price lately. I can always build it as a carburetor vehicle for the time being and switch to EFI if the right parts truck shows up.

That seems like a very high serial number for 1913.

My 1918 Packard truck has a very similar plate. Not sure where it is at the moment to confirm the lettering is the same . Cole Hersey pull / push switches inside. I am sure other vehicles used the same setup, but possibly with different functions for the switches. Actually when I think about it mine does not have the Mag . control on this panel. It has a seperate switch for the Mag. functions. But still a good chance it is from a better quality Commercial vehicle from the later teens. Other than the lettering for the switch functions my switch face is identical.

There is a propane station very close by. And not a fly by night operation, I expect auto propane will be available close to me for the forseeable future. But the power loss could be a problem. It's a more complicated swap but perhaps a later model 300 with EFI would be the best choice.

That's very interesting. I wasn't aware of that version. But I bet they are very hard to come by today. I see several { or more } Holly carbs at every swap meet. Can a standard Q Jet be modified to that configuration ?

Like I mentioned on another thread , my 1966 Mercury { Canadian } 1/2 ton is currently under re - construction. A 1975 frame is the main change , but I am also strongly considering swithing the FE 360 to a 300 -6. The 360 is tired and a real gas hog. The good 300 I have at the moment is mid 1970's and a propane conversion engine. I also have a second one , but it has been sitting for at least 20 years and may no longer be usable. Is anyone up to speed about potential fuel cost savings for Propane vs Gasoline these days ? I have everything but the tank. The only other concideration is the compression ratio. I am going to have to pull the head and see what sort of pistons are in it. The better propane conversions usually bumped up compression so I might have to swap back to a lower C.R. Is it worth it to go to the trouble of keeping the propane ? Or should I keep the truck gasoline powered ? Light hauling , sometimes with my car trailer , but usually reasonably light cars. And not a huge mileage each year. Thanks !

My re - born 1/2 ton might end up with a Ford 300 6. It has a 1970's 360 in it now , 352 originally. .Anyone know if there is much of a saving with Propane these days over swapping back to gasoline ? The only 300 I have at the moment came from a truck with a propane conversion. I have everything but the tank . But if there is no fuel saving it wouldn't be worth the trouble. I know, I should start a new thread.

Model A what ? If it is Ford they were made from 1928 - 1931. Most 1913 cars will be at least some demand, many in quite a bit of demand and possibly even in the high value catagory. Ford Model A's are always in demand but relatively low value. Touring is one of the pricer ones.

There is a valid reason for trading a Q -Jet with a Holley. If you are running a reasonably hot cam. This is why all the higher HP Ford and GM engines came from the factory with a Holley. Low vacum at idle alows the metering rods to raise resulting in a very rich mixture. There are ways of reducing the effect, Jon and a few others probably know for sure, but for most of us just doing what the factories did was the simplest solution. Holley power valves are available in many settings to cope with low idle vacum and are very easy to change. Q jets need the metering rod springs changed and a much more involved process to get it right.

Just my 2 cents, but I would be inclined to look for a Reo cab and front sheet metal , radiator. Just saw a very decent, all steel, early truck cab at a swap meet { Fagel }. Price was very reasonable. Keeping the Cleveland body would result in a interesting truck, but it's going to be a very large undertaking. Reo trucks may not be common, but I have seen a few over the years. The Cleveland might be a better propisition if returned to a Cleveland car chassis. Do you have all the metal parts for the Cleveland ? Except the cut off rear section of course. At least it is a 3 window coupe, but still a lot of wood work. It's rarely about potential profit on 90 % of pre war vehicles, but at some point the amount of time you have to invest becomes a concern.

I agree about the attraction of the Canadian only Fords / Mercs . Thinking back to the days of my youth in the later 1960's , early 1970's they seemed reasonably common. Out here on the West Coast they are quite rare these days. The only one I own is a 1966 Mercury M 100 Custom Cab. Currently doing a frame swap to a 1975 F 150. I use it as a truck so the dual circuit disk brakes and Saginaw steering will be a big improvement. Almost a bolt on swap , so it can be reversed should a future owner want to go back to dead stock. Biggest modification is moving the rear springs a bit. And that takes place on the newer frame . I am keeping the 1966 chassis should it ever be wanted down the road.

Some did have a air pump on the engine, and the hand pump was just for starting. But others just used the hand pump and the driver had to add more pressure from time to time. I think the ones that used exhaust gas were the least common. My Packard truck has a small air pump driven off the camshaft, but very few other engine I have seen have this feature.