Jump to content

George K

Members
  • Posts

    136
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About George K

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

George K's Achievements

500+ Points

500+ Points (2/7)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Collaborator

Recent Badges

84

Reputation

  1. Nicked this low res ad. Just like the scale with the people.
  2. What a wonderful beast of a truck. Beam rails and all. That was meant to carry some weight. How wide are those springs? The wheels are great. What to you think top end was. 5-10 mph? Replaced a lot of horses.
  3. That’s really nice stuff. If I was you I would graft the drive line including the chain drive axle into that perfect short wheelbase chassis. What a beautiful confection chain drive speedster. Best of luck.
  4. Second choice Mama Hated Diesels. “He was wearing my brand new shoes” Man that’s was awhile ago.
  5. This is from 1925 Dykes. Thought it could be a good reference.
  6. Bob, Many years ago I was visiting Geoffrey St John (engineer not comic character) who owned a Figoni bodied T55 Bugatti. The conversation included the creation of this car. I asked what his thought was about it. I won’t use the direct quote but involved what type of body you would need to drive it. Let’s just say no modern human can.
  7. That’s the type of chassis I had. With that turn down at the rear it limits the wheelbase. Nice photos. Thanks for posting them.
  8. What was the wheelbase of the 1915 30 White automobiles. I am thinking 115”.
  9. Ed, How long did White use that 30 truck chassis? I remember having 3/4 ton White chassis’s from the 1920’s. Maybe they are different. Still stuck on what did the short wheelbase 16V4 chassis looked like. Can’t believe they built two separate sets of tooling for long and short wheelbase versions. The only way to shorten the chassis would have been to cut it on the flat straight section and weld it. Maybe someone can help find the 124” 16V4 chassis photo.
  10. Good to hear about the axles. Your 1917 has a low number engine and your #2 and town car have higher by hundreds. Double ignition on T heads really works because most of the have a squeeze area the size of a pasta dish. . You will feel the power difference right away. Usually a racing or later engine type development. White had plenty of capital for sure. Building chassis tooling is expensive especially when using the type of steel White built their frame out of. The lack of the kick up was normal for White trucks. They are like much earlier frames used on chain drive automobiles. Trucks got away with flat chassis with turned down ends because of the heavy and highly arched springs. #2 must be significantly lighter than #1. What does the spring width and arch look like on #2. Have you ever seen any pictures or parts books for 16V4 short wheelbase? No matter what salts out about you car I think it’s a factory hot setup. Bet it will give you an all religious experience from what I can tell about your driving style. Forge ahead there’s more to the story. George.
  11. Ed, Your forgetting that 16V4’s are the first unit engine White made. No other transmission from a car would work as the are separate amidship.
  12. No way your car is a Frankenstein. You have a casting #15 EE. You reported the town car has the # 14. Does is also have the EE suffix? You stated there was a 82hp version made. My interpretation of your 15 EE = #15 experimental engine. As both your and the town car are twin ignition which without boring everyone increases your hp at least 10. I cannot say anything about the town car as it appears hard on the eyes but yours has history of use and ownership.
×
×
  • Create New...