Stude Light

I took the liberties of posting in the CLC Forum (more specific traffic). See response so far. http://forums.cadillaclasalleclub.org/index.php?topic=161406.0

AER has a Facebook page in addition to the website: https://www.facebook.com/AERrebuild/ Advanced Electrical Rebuilders 16574 S Bauer Rd, Grand Ledge, MI 48837 jason@aerrebuild.com (517) 345-7272

UPDATE - Got ahold of him. Jason is fine, but says past few months have been crazy busy. He just recently found that the website was down and is working to get that resolved. Scott

I've tried emailing and texting Jason several times the last month or so and have had no response. He typically checks in on the forum. I'll chime back in if I get a hold of him. Scott

This also serves as a reminder that “ownership” should be replaced with “custodian” when it comes to our possessions. Personally I try to be a good custodian when it comes to historical items in my possession currently. Other stuff....I may just be a user. I’m not sure what new items I own today will be sought after in later years as a desirable antique. Scott

Top photo left to right: 1923 Olds Model 43 Brougham, 1923 Studebaker Light Six, 1922 Olds Model 47T. Foreground is a Ford Model A

I finally got my 1939 LaSalle on the road after an engine, trans, driveline and chassis rebuild. I spent a lot more money than I wanted to, but my desire was to have a reliable touring car that I could put plenty of miles on without worrying what was going to fail next. That's when I looked at the tires. The bias ply wide whitewalls looked to be in really nice shape and they were barely worn, but from the date code it appeared they were made sometime in the early 1990s. I've read plenty of stories on this forum and have my own RV and trailer tire stories to tell and that is: Beauty is only skin deep, it's what's on the inside you can't see that counts (wait! seems I've heard this somewhere before). Anyway, I figured I would have to go spend even more money and buy a new set of bias ply whitewalls before I started to enjoy the car. Before spending another pile of cash, I decided to seek some advice first and reached out to Matt Harwood. I don't know Matt but I met him briefly at Hershey last year and, from his forum posts, he seemed like a pretty stand up guy, plus I knew he has been around the block a few times (no pun) with this era car and loves to drive his '41 Buick. He was gracious enough to respond and offered up his experiences. From that correspondence I decided to check into radials and reached out to Diamondback Tire. The guy that answered the phone was Bill Chapman. What a nice guy. He spent a lot of time with me on the phone and explained how their Auburn Deluxe Radials might be a good choice for my car. Sure, he wanted me to buy his product but it wasn't a salesman pitch but rather, some info about the design and some of the issues they had specifying and getting dimensions correct. I needed a 7.00 x 16 but he only had the 7.50 x 16 but since they were made a little undersize would probably be fine. In the end I decided to buy a set and he threw the beauty bars in for free. Then I talked tubes...he's like "no, no...no tubes. Your rims will accept a tubless tire no problem. Tubes will only give you grief." Okay, we'll see. I already had all the car's alignment specs all dialed in, got the tires swapped out and balanced (it did take a lot of weight - put most on the inside but still needed some outside). Wow, what a great looking tire (has the raised beauty bar and pie crust edge) and what a great ride! Compared to the BF Goodrich Silvertown bias plys that were on the car, they tracked a lot better and the ride quality was much better. Truly impressed. And yes, they all hold air fine. I have a few hundred miles on and really enjoy driving it. This reads a bit like an advertisement but I really just wanted to share my experience and, rather than a PM, I want to thank you Matt for the great advice that steered me to abandon the bias ply and go with radials! Very happy I did. Scott And as a side note, I did give away my old tires to a new owner rather than filling up the landfill - not being used as a driver.

I was thinking it may be a component that dries out and shrinks, like a gasket or hose. It may not even be in the carb but somewhere in the intake/vacuum side of the engine. After you run the engine, get the fuel moving and it warms up, this part expands a little and starts to seal. After two weeks it gradually dries out and shrinks. Scott

Hi Bob, The Classic Auto Air unit makes no mention of a compressor, compressor drive unit, condensor, expansion valve, evaporator, etc. It looks to me just to be an air handling unit that would have a blower and maybe an integrated evaporator (that's not clear) - you need to supply the rest of the refrigerant system. Scott

Unfortunately, not too many engineers from that time around anymore to ask (or harass for that matter.) Personally, I really like the Stromberg OS-1 on my 1923 Studebaker so there were some good options back then.

Jon is spot on. I was looking through some old test reports on carburetion development at GM (#IWORKFORGM) from the 1920s and 30s last night and there are lots of them. It was clear that it wasn't a chicken or egg but they happened simultaneously through collaboration of the OEM doing independent testing along with the carburetor companies and sharing of data to get to the best solution. While GM bought Rochester, they worked with Carter, Stromberg, Holly, Schebler and about 30 that you've never heard of. They would develop their own carbs at R&D to prove out concepts or take supplier carbs and make modifications, then work back with those suppliers for improvements. Often they took the generic, off the shelf units and ran them on vehicles and test benches to see how they might perform for future vehicle models. Flow benches and vehicle tests were used. General Motors Research out of Dayton did most of this early work for each division.

I'm currently searching for the correct metering rod gauge or maybe make one. I totally agree on utilizing a vacuum gauge, they can be a very good tool that are often ignored these days. Thanks for the advice. As far as specific gravity....that has really not changed. Todays gasoline has a specific gravity around 0.74 (0.71-0.77 depending on the exact gasoline and manufacturer). Data that I have shows in 1939 summer gasoline available in the Detroit area ranged in specific gravity from 0.72 - 0.75 as sampled from Gulf, Hi-Speed, Shell, Standard, Sinclair, Texas, White Star (Socony-Vacuum), Cities Service and Sun. Regular gas averaged 71.5 octane , Ethyl averaged 78 octane and Third averaged 65.5 octane. Prices were a bit cheaper though as Third was 13.1 cents/gallon, Regular was 15.7 cents/gallon and Ethyl was 18.2 cents/gallon. Scott

I verified today (7-23-20) that the great folks at the Gilmore Car Museum are still planning on having both, the Friday Tour and Saturday Show for the Congress of Motor Cars in October. Show is limited to 500 cars - that is a lot but, hey, they have 90 acres of space to fill (7800 sq ft of space per car). With everything else being cancelled this year, I'm certainly looking forward to it. Scott

And a couple of his car

Hi Brian, If you are interested in seeing more details of what this car would have looked like I submit the following.... Kent Musgrave has this model and it was featured in the Nov-Dec 2018 Antique Studebaker Review. His great-grandmother owned a 1924 model and Kent purchased a similar car and created a great merged photo of his great-grandfather, grandfather and his nephew using photos taken in 1927 and 2016 (attached) - great story. Scott

To be more exact it is either a 1923 or 1924 Studebaker Model EM Light Six Three Passenger Roadster. There is no way to distinguish between those two years with the photos you have though. The reason it is not a 1922 (or earlier) is that the cowl lamps are set into the windshield frame. Scott

Hagerty will also insure it without the historic vehicle registration at a little higher rate then lower it once you get it re-registered. Scott

Looking through my 1919-1922 parts book. Not much on seats but does show two different rear cushion part numbers for the Speedster (V). One p/n shows only one used while the other p/n (206361) shows a quantity of two. This may be indicative of the two rear seat designs. There are no illustrations of the seats though. Scott

Being on both sides of this process for a number of years, it's rare you find all you want at the same time so, I'll chime in on the process that worked for me and many others.... You buy all of Bob's lot. Then someone else will chime in with one or two others and you grab those. Then a third person will have one more and you end up with a set. You now become the curator of the orphaned parts for someone else who posts a need in the future or someone may contact you asking about the ones you didn't use. It's kind of like paying it forward in a way. Scott

I used ELE457 LED bulbs from Restoration supply in the rear lights on my 1939 LaSalle. Since this car did not come with turn signals, I repurposed a pair of period correct fog lamps using incandescent bulbs in the front. This allowed me to use a standard turn signal relay without adding additional resistors. Car is positive ground and these lights are made for that polarity. I also added a brake lighter in the rear (https://www.brakelighter.com/). I am really pleased with the results and can start looking out my windows again versus focusing on the people behind me. Scott

I think Tinindian and Joe hit it - Packaging. The longer strokes require a wider engine that is hard to package. This also applies to all the horizontally opposed aircraft engines. The 6 cylinder Franklin helicopter engine that was modified for the Tucker 48 had the following specs: Bore: 4.5 in (114.3 mm) Stroke: 3.5 in (88.9 mm) Displacement: 335 cu in (5.49 l) Two examples of modern aircraft engines: Lycoming 4 cylinder aircraft engine Bore: 5.125 in (130 mm) Stroke: 4.375 in (111 mm) Displacement: 361 cu in (5,916 cc) Continental 6 cylinder aircraft engine: Bore: 5.25 in (133.35 mm) Stroke: 4.00 (101.6 mm) Displacement: 520 in³ (8.51 litres)

Good point No way to set timing from inside. It has mechanical advance but no vacuum advance. I was thinking of advancing a few degrees, especially since the lower compression engine (6.25:1) wasn't designed for 87-89 octane fuels. It's easy to change. Thanks everyone, for all the advice. Scott

You are looking for the two rag joint discs for the water pump driveshaft, correct? https://www.ebay.com/itm/PIERCE-ARROW-STUDEBAKER-DUESENBERG-A-HARDY-DISK/113989732193?hash=item1a8a514761:g:uQgAAOSwiCFd3Y-s

Thanks Jon. I think I have all the other fuel economy points covered....brakes properly adjusted, new Diamondback Radials set to 42 psi (seems to be the sweet spot), timing correct, running non-ethanol fuel, etc. I would expect something between 12-15 mpg. So maybe my new question is - does someone have a gauge they can loan me?

I would like to improve the fuel economy in my 1939 LaSalle. It has a Carter WDO 423-S carb that I rebuilt last year but didn’t have the template gauge to set the metering rod height so I used suggestions in several pieces of literature I found on line. I have 500 miles on a freshly rebuilt engine. Although it runs and drives great, I’m only getting about 9 mpg driving 55-60 mph. The exhaust pipe is a bit sooty. So my question for anyone who has played around with these carbs is: Can I just adjust my metering rods to be lower? I think I do that by loosening the screw and rotating the metering rod arm so both rods sit lower at the same throttle setting and re-tighten the screw. I don’t think the will affect the anti-percolator settings. It’s been a year so I don’t quite recall the details and hate to mess it up too much since it runs great but just too rich. It seems I could just may small changes and look for economy improvements through trial and error. I'll know I went too lean if it starts running poorly. Anyone try doing this before on another WDO? Thanks for any help. Scott