Gunsmoke

1931 Chrysler Roadsters presented a real challenge to get a vacuum wiper to work. The fold flat windshield in particular needed some creativity. Here are an original factory photo and a restored one off internet as well as my project. The copper 3/16" OD vacuum line left intake manifold and ran through firewall and up the driver side stanchion in a groove (hidden when not folded by the windshield side weather stripping) until it reached the pivot, where it turned 90 degrees into a snug hole and stopped. A corresponding copper tube was in upper arm and its lower end went into a similar hole on upper arm which had an internal passageway that lined up with lower arm hole when arm was straight (windshield stanchion in full upright position). The Pivot thumb nut when tight provides for a reasonably tight joint. Upper end of copper tube came out of arm just below the upper windshield frame pivot and has rubber line over to conventional Trico wiper which mounts to upper frame of windshield (whole thing is pretty messy and unsophisticated IMHO). Note on the restored car the same type of wiper is used, but inlet is on opposite end of motor, requiring awkward tubing route. Because windshied on these cars can also be tilted outward at bottom (like Model A's), a rubber tube is needed for flexibility. For my car's restoration I plan to set one of these up to pass roadworthy requirements but remove it when out for a drive as it will likely never see any use, and when folded down, wiper assembly seems out of place!

a quick check indicates a lot of story about this car, supposedly a '46 Packard Clipper "Darrin" built for E Flynn and originally peach color with green interior. It later sold circa 1948 to a gent, who then resold it in '51 after which it was painted a dark color and eventually disappeared. Story suggests the '48 owner always regretted selling the car, could no longer locate it, so in 1990 had a reproduction made, and this is it. Good enough for me, the Hollywood crowd would have loved it and the story, and that is all that likely mattered to Flynn. If any of the naysayers on here lived/live in Hollywood they would know the vibe!

Same item was used on 1927 Pontiac Sport Coupe, I helped restore this one 5/6 yrs ago.

"Floating Power" was a phrase Chrysler used as an advertising ploy beginning in 1931/32 for many of their models including Plymouth. As I understand it, their engines prior to then were typically bolted solidly to the frame, using only vulcanized rubber mounts and the engine acted as a stiffener for the whole chassis as well. But vibration and "engine induced tremor" caused customer complaints. So Chrysler modified the drivetrain, X braced the frame for stiffness, and used a 3 point engine suspension system that allowed it to hang free of direct bolting to chassis (some Chrysler experts may have a tidier explanation). In any event rather than admit the problem with their old system, they coined the phrase "floating power" as some new creation, and said it eliminated engine tremor, when in fact it was simply correcting a vibration issue! I don't know that they ever meant the term to apply to the transmission (like fluid drive), but perhaps they used it for that purpose in later years.

Here are pics of the steering wheel assembly I had, found it in a farmer's shed along with a 1928 Plymouth bumper. That was 1st year for Plymouth, so would not be surprised if this wheel appeared on other Chrysler products, perhaps with different controls. Sold entire assembly to someone out West. Hole in one spoke may have been for a spinner gizmo!

If you're really asking among auto enthusiasts what is the "most desirable" car that exclusive group might want if they could only have 1 and wanted something they could drive and show, the MB would be hard to move off the top. A Ferrari GTO circa 1962-1965 would be my second choice, and for a 3rd/4th brand, a racing Bugatti (Type 51 perhaps) and an Alfa Romeo 2900 next. My preference is clearly for well engineered reliable and rare sports cars, after all what other reason for owning a car is there but to be able to run fast! Of my 4, my guess is the MB would be the most fun, and most reliable. While the Royales are awesome, owning one would be like owning a Faberge Egg, rare, expensive, but not very useful. If money is a factor, the Ford GT40 would be hard to beat. Duesenbergs are wonderful and rare, but cannot imagine enjoying driving one fast.

The article indicates Ulenhaut, the MB honcho for whom the cars were named, used this one as his personal transportation and raced it in some local events at the time, but not as a factory racecar. It's bones are pure race version It seems.

Motives for deciding to sell aside, and the deep pockets of the buyer aside, (both have nothing to do with whether this is possibly the finest car ever built), I personally understand why any sincere and wealthy car aficionado would want to own this gem. MB throughout it's fabled history has rarely built an ordinary car. To the contrary, their products have excelled generally in style, engineering, purposefulness and purity. This 1 of 2 example stands at the very top by some distance from any of the rest of their output (above SSKL's, other Gullwings, 30's GP cars etc). Knowing MB's attention to every detail, I can imagine this car could be used for pleasure for another 100 years and kept mechanically fresh with MB's known client support system. While a lot of $$ changed hands (by someone for whom $$$ is not likely a factor)(I'd rather own this than Twitter!), I'm hoping whomever acquired it exercises it regularly, and gets to enjoy the exhilarating pleasure the original racers must have enjoyed. My tip of cap goes to MB for allowing this gem to go back into private ownership. Kudos.

Definitely Chrysler/Plymouth circa 27/28. # on steering box may narrow it down. Had one, sold 2 yrs ago.

These cars are not in big demand these days, sedans (4dr and 2dr) are on the bottom of demand behind tourers, roadsters and pickups. As you may know, biggest market regrettably, if price is right, is hot rodders who want a low starting price for a build. I spent a number of years restoring this 1931 Chevrolet Coach as my first effort in the hobby. Went full frame off, spent perhaps $15,000 (hate to figure actual!) plus 1200 hours labour to get it to the stage of paint ready, and no interior work. Picked up a more interesting project in 2014, so although the Chevy was running nicely "as shown", decided to sell it in 2021. Asked $13,000, settled for Can$10,000 (about $7500USD). Guy who bought it was a painter body man, who could finish it on his own. So price point for what you have is solely dependent on finding a buyer. Not much sense in spending a lot fixing everything up unless you plan to keep it long term. From what you describe, I figure the value range "as is" is between $5000-$8000. But you need to find a buyer.

The term "Hub Cap" was the common term for these items in Parts Lists for wood spoked wheels early on and they were used on front and rear, and since they were exposed, usually with badging of some sort. When wire wheels became more common, at least Chrysler in their parts books began to differentiate between the inner "grease" cap " by calling it a "wire wheel hub grease cap" (usually had no marking/badge), and the outer decorative chrome item by calling it a "wire wheel hub shell cap"! Obviously these long terms were to differentiate parts for ordering etc, and not likely ever used by mechanics in the trade. Ironically, the small "hub cap" (for grease and dust control) eventually became a common term for what might be described as wheel disks, decorative wheel covers, etc, etc when in truth they are not hub caps at all. So personally I prefer the term "hub grease cap" for these small items as it more closely explains what they do, and for the uninformed, differentiates them from what everybody else in the world thinks a hub cap is!

NZ said "Were they really in those bright colours.." I understand it is "it" and not "they", being only one of one. Nice photos BiB, of an "uber rare car"! Guess I'm going to have to look these up in my Funk and Wagnells (an old Smother Brothers Skit)! (or was it Rowan and Martin?)

Discerning between an original and a good reproduction badge, the devil is in the details. I see a lot of detail differences between these 2 badges, not the least of which is the (1) blue versus white border. (2)The general background is dark maroon versus black.(3) The brass outlines on the Hanski badge are much thinner generally and more uniform. (4) The blue border on the lower left corner is uniform in width as it turns the corner in the Hanski, while on the OP, the "white" border changes width as it turns the corner. (5)The red lens reflective area is much more subtle and refined in the Hanski photo. (6) The distance from the top of the S to the brass border is about twice the width of the brass border in Hanski photo, but only about same as brass border in OP. (7)Look at the brass edge of the S as it rises above the center bar of the E. In the Hanski, the brass is neat well defined. In the OP, it is blurred and hard to differentiate. (8) Even the small DOT at bottom center is perfectly centered in Hanski, including being on centerline of writing i.e. centered on the K. In OP, this Dot is slightly off-center of badge, and not centered in writing. My view is the Hanski badge is likely original and the OP is a decent reproduction. They are certainly not a "perfect match".

Aaaw the agony of having a '29 Cord!! Glad you figured it out before you broke something nearly irreplaceable!

Came across what I figure are pretty rare pieces of Oldsmobile and Oakland literature from 1928 during a weekend car swap meet. Among a gent's modern part and repair manuals was this 1928 Oldsmobile Series F parts list, which had tucked inside 2 small supplements for 1928 Oldsmobile pricing and 1928 Oakland 6-212 Parts. All 3 are for Canadian cars. Doubt there are many of these around today (the supplements probably very rare, who would save them?). Parts book (27 pages) was damaged, pages fused together from dampness at some point. I've listed these in For Sale Forum. To the right person.......

Attended a car parts swap meet over the weekend and found this likely rare set of 1928 Oldsmobile/Oakland parts lists. Regrettably the Oldsmobile Series F Parts list First Edition dated March 15 1928, 27 pages, is badly damaged, obviously got a soaking of some sort years ago, pages were literally welded together in top corner. With some steam, managed to separate them somewhat, a new owner might be able to repair further. The 2 supplements were in among the pages. One is a price list for some specific Oldsmobile Series F items for Eastern (Canada?) and second is a March 15 1928 Oakland Supplementary Parts List for Model 6-212. These are only of passing interest to me, will pass on to someone interested for $10 plus shipping.

If all original electrics, these cars only had one fuse, located at ammeter which only was on circuit for horn and headlights/parklights. It would not affect starter. Check cables battery to ground, battery to starter, and starter switch. Sometimes the depressing of the starter switch does not make full contact at starter. The fact lights etc don't work suggests bad ground or battery cable connections.

My guess is that the frames are made with an outer steel C channel and an inner C channel, sized slightly smaller to allow it to slide into the outer channel. Then rather than weld the assembly, numerous bolts complete the job. I don't understand why any builder would put wood in such an enclosed package as it would no doubt get wet and rot. Don't know if any companies used such an approach. A friend had a car trailer built 10 years ago with heavy 3" aluminum C channel side rails, but they turned out to be too weak, and flexed when any significant weight was put on them. To remedy that, I suggested he buy similar aluminum C channels in a size suitable to slide in the outer C, and bolt it all together as a boxed section. The addition doubled the stiffness and it now works well.

Your Dad had great taste in cars!

Trying to imagine what type of gear they had to machine those fine threads on such large dimeter parts, both the inner one and the outer one. The total surface contact area is very large, not surprised they would be so difficult to unscrew. I have a tough enough time getting a bottle of pickles open!

Nice car, appears to be '51 New Yorker. The phillips head screws suggest this plate has been added, normally they were riveted. Similarly, the door # looks pop riveted, also not likely original means of fastening. May take some effort to pin down correct year/model ID plates. I stand corrected, here is a pic off internet of a 1951 Chrysler cowl tag, shows phillips screws, same general detail as yours has.

Just to be clear, in some jurisdictions there is a difference between "Registration" (old school record of ownership and permission to drive car on the road) and "Title" (Deed of ownership for a vehicle). For many years in my jurisdiction (Nova Scotia) there was only "registration of a vehicle", and if you also wanted to drive it, you paid for plates. 30 years ago, when you "registered " your car, you got a piece of paper with "Vehicle Registration" on it, along with a set of plates, and you had to sign the registration and were asked to keep the "registration" in your dash for when the cops stopped you. If they were suspicious about who you were, they could compare the signature with that on your driver's license. If you sold the car, you signed the spot on the vehicle registration for selling. indicated who you sold it to, and the new owner could take that to DMV to transfer ownership. About 20 years ago, they had experienced lots of cases of cars being stolen (with registration in dash, or traded, or junked etc and people coming in looking to register cars/change ownership. They realized there was a growing problem with a question of who really owned the vehicle, and was the vehicle for which plates were being given the actual car on the old registration. So they adopted a 2 part system. Nowadays, they give you 2 documents, a registration (which is in effect the plates and dash paperwork to show the cops), and a separate "Title" document that they recommend you keep in a safe place, and not in the car. Now, when selling the car you need to sign over the "Title"(deed). If someone steals or otherwise comes into possession of your car (fraudulent sale by a 3rd party), they cannot register it without a copy of the car's "Title" signed by you. Now I don't know just what happened in the case described by the OP, but in many jurisdictions I suspect over the last 25 years DMV's have gone to a 2 part system, and cars initially "registered" 20-30 years ago were never given a "Title" document. I'm restoring a 1931 Chrysler currently. When I bought it as a barn find in 2014, I got the "Title document" signed by the PO (car had not been licensed for 45 years), and took that to DMV to transfer "Title" to me, cost $10 (plus provincial tax on value of sale). However the car is not "registered to be driven" as it is not ready to be driven. By end of summer I am hoping to go in to DMV and get some plates with paperwork(which here cost about $150 for 2 years). TMI, sorry!

I'll be curious to hear from the MOPAR experts on this one. I'm restoring a '31 CD8 Roadster and have been familiarizing myself with MOPAR products of the period. Earliest models I recall with fixed sloping windshield posts like this were circa 1931/32 coupes, but most convertibles had chromed stanchions or vertical posts. "70 Years of Chrysler" by George Dammann doesn't show one bodied like this. However, the rather cumbersome folding top looks unusual. In Dammann, a photo shows a 1928 model 72 Convertible and he refers to "the tops framework resulting in a rather lumpy looking package when folded down". Your car may be a British bodied car? Also note Dammann photo shows folding sideirons (landau bars).

When having face to face conversations/communicating, there are 3 basic forms, verbal, non-verbal, and para-verbal (stay with me). Example: Your spouse asks you "Do you love me"? A "verbal reply" is simple "Yes Dear". A "non-verbal reply" might be a nod of the head, or a big warm hug. The "para-verbal reply" however might really tell the truth. It deals with tone, physical reaction, body language, volume and other signals. So the spouse who replies "Yeees Deear while rolling their eyes", or whimpers "yes dear' such that you can hardly hear, or while walking out of the room, may be giving a message different from the verbal words. Similarly a spouse who looks him/her straight in the eye and loudly declares "I love you so much and gives her/him a hug to boot, likely leaves little doubt. So body language and tone is a real factor in face to face communication, some suggest 50% of the message. But what about communications on platforms like AACA. All we get is words, i.e verbal expressions, no body language, no volume (unless you use all caps to imply screaming), and the reader is left to interpret sincerity by language alone. That is why sarcasm, irony, ambiguous statements are problematic. So following Peter G's good advice, say what's on your mind in a civil, fair, and helpful manner, avoid potshots, sarcasm, or jabs and allow discussion to occur without vitriol or side-tracking. Treat members on here like you treat your spouse (at least the way I hope you treat them).

Just curious if anyone has had contact with this 1st time poster? Too good to be true!