JV Puleo

No. Neither surface is scraped, at best it was planed but I'm hesitant to change them. As to the plates, their surface is probably as flat as the jugs. I may put a gasket between the case and the blocks - probably annealed copper. There are many measurements that still need to be taken like the exact height of the pistons etc... since I never had the engine assembled or complete there has been a fair amount of guesswork combined with the provision for later adjustment. What doesn't show is that I've been thinking about how to solve the crankcase problems for years so I'm not guite diving in with my eyes closed. I think align boring these two caps and then the camshaft hole to accommodate a center cam bearing are the most challenging part of the job. I still don't know how the device that advances the boring bar works...

I think that one of the great advantages to working on very early cars is that none of the specialized machines that made parts that are very difficult to replicate had been invented yet.

What is CRS? I assume it's a material but I'm not familiar with it. Ah... Cold Rolled Steel. I've never heard it called that before.

Brilliant! I've often wondered what would be needed to make a gilled-tube radiator.

I continued stripping the engine down this morning and noticed something. This is the intake port that I thought I'd have to bore out. The scribed line was taken from the flange before the actual intake elbow was screwed in. But when I look at the inside diameter of the intake manifold it doesn't look as if I have the problem I'd thought. With the jugs removed I have to make plates to take their place. for lack of a better name I think of them as "torsion plates." The idea is to do all the crankcase machining with them bolted in place to replicate the stress the case isl under when the jugs are in place. These crankcases are a lot more flexible than you'd think and if you don't do this you run the risk of having the line boring not line up when the engine is assembled. I also worked on the water pump hold down. This casting was literally the first part I made, 7-1/2 years ago. I knew virtually nothing about making patterns and made it round because I couldn't think of another way to do it. I'd never do it the same way today but I may as well use it. Drilled and reamed to get clearance for a boring bar. Then I had to mark the middle because the idea was to mill away one side. It goes on the larger of the two saddles. Set up in the mill. The little piece of gasket material is there because the sides aren't perfectly parallel. I didn't think it would work but I lucked out this time. With half the piece milled away. The hole in the center and the surfaces on the ends will be done at the boring stage, after it is attached so it's mechanically straight. This is roughly what it will look like. I don't actually have a lot of things to do to the crankcase but they all demand an unusually high degree of precision - which is why I've put this off so long. I've learned a lot in the last 7 years.

I assumed as much - which is why I may send it to someone who knows the subject... That said, I'm dealing with about 300 cubic inches so any advice you can give will be greatly appreciated.

I have one of those too. So far, it hasn't lived up to expectations but I can't say I've used it much or given a lot of thought to making it work better. I did do one of my 3 Stromberg M3s. It made an improvement, just not much. I'm hoping to get one good one out the the parts for the 3 but carburetor rebuilding is another of those skills I've yet to master.

After that big lump of aluminum bar was drilled and reamed to 1-1/4" I mounted it on a mandrel and turned the small end. This end fits into the crankcase. I made it about .004 undersize so it will slip in easily. The four mounting bolts should hold it secure and I can't be certain that the Mitchell-Lewis people actually bored the hole straight so a tiny amount of wiggle room is probably wanted. I then pressed it off the mandrel and turned it around. And turned the other end. The housing that encloses the timing gears clamps around this. It's about .050 long because when I have the timing gears in hand I'll have to fit them and I'm thinking of shortening this about .070 to accommodate a thrust bearing. Then I set up the original piece in the dividing head to locate the holes. The dividing head is much easier to use in the drill press. A B&S dividing head has a 1"40 gear reduction so 10 thurns of the handle is 90 degrees. Then the holes were drilled and counterbored. And I realized that I've reached something of a milestone. This is the end of the parts I can make for the upper half of the engine (though some will have to be fitted later). It is now time to start on the crankcase so I started stripping it and putting the parts away.

BSP - British Standard Pipe. We have NTP which is similar but still slightly different. (EDIT) You probably could do an odd number, 2-start thread by cutting one with the 1&3 setting than starting over and using the 2&4. I wonder if they make multiple start taps?

At this point, unless I know the person who was supposed to have done a rebuild, and can ask them what they did, I would not believe any sellers claim of a "rebuilt engine". Even when they are telling the truth - and I suspect most people are truthful - 90% of the car enthusiast world simply can't tell a good job from a bad one. I've had one engine done by a "professional" (this was many years ago)...He came very highly recommended and, in fact, did some Silver Ghost engines. But, on my engine he did some really schlock work. It was at that point I decided that if I was going to pursue old cars I had to learn how to do nearly everything mechanical myself.

The numbers on the threading gauge aren't, as far as I know, for cutting a multiple start thread. Usually there will be some sort of plate on the machine explaining them but, as just a guess, I'd say it might be any even number of threads, use any line. For an odd number of threads you may need 1 & 3... There are a lot of different types and I'm not familiar with one that only has 4 marks. I've only seen them with intermediate marks as well. The plate on my machine that explains them is actually wrong. It says "any mark for an even number of threads" when it should say "any mark for an even number divisible by 4" I know this because I accidentally cut a multiple start thread once by using an intermediate line. I was cutting 6 TPI which is even but not divisible by 4. To cut a multiple start thread, I'd use a dog driver with the correct number of holes...cut one thread then move the dog to the next hole. It's something I'll try one of these days but I've never had a need to do it.

I've found more... this appears to be a really good system that would make using a high tension magneto without an impulse coupling a breeze. I wonder why no one has ever pursued it. I know I've seen the switches for it... I've even had a couple and were the great Bills Auto Parts still around I could probably find one in a couple of hours. The parts were Bosch VD Ed. 1 and VD Ed. 2. I'll even bet there are some NOS examples out there but I've no idea where to look.

Thanks guys. I'll send the original jpeg from home - right now I'm in the office. If I can sort this out it simplifies quite a bit. The mag I have was introduced in 1911 and doesn't have the same connections as the Bosch DU series so it must have used this system for crank starting, since it also pre-dates the impulse starter. I think I have some Model T coils - new ones in the plastic cases, but they have been in a drawer in my basement for 30 years. jp

They might. The mag I'm thinking of using is a ZR4 and it was used mostly on marine engines and heavy duty stationary engines. apparently it was severely over built so non-automotive folks may well have a better idea how it worked. I did find a Popular Science article on making one - or what may be one - It's just a trembler coil with the secondary circuit short circuited. But, I'd like to get it right and I don't want to go down the road reliant on 100 year old electrical components so some modern, easily replaced part is very much needed. jp

I may have found a period answer to my magneto issues... except I don't know enough about electricity to sort it out. Here are two pages from a 1914 issue of Motor Age showing the wiring for a Bosch NU4 mag. The manual that came with the ZR4 - which is what I have - shows the same wiring diagram and specifically states that it can be wired with the "vibrating coil" for cars that do not have an electric starter. Everything is quite straight forward except I don't understand the coil. All the cols I'm familiar with have a third connection for the distributor so what is this one doing? Is it a big condenser? The magneto manual also says it works with either 6 or 12 volt systems.

The slightly oversize reamer made a world of difference. I tried it in 4 or 5 positions and it screwed together easily in all of them and the shaft in the center didn't bind at all. I don't often use the word "perfect" in regard to my own work but this comes as close as I've ever managed. So I cleaned the dividing head up and put it away. Ill leave the chuck on it as using collets with it has always been a "work around" to compensate for not having a chuck. Finishing that left me wondering what to do next. I am perilously close to having to dismantle the engine and start machining the crankcase... but first I played around with the mag, removing the half a coupling that was on it. This is a Bosch ZF4. Based on the serial number it was made in 1912 so it's well withing the range of years I'm working with. What I don't know is how it was wired since it pre-dates the introduction of the impulse starter and I don't know how you'd connect a battery - its something else I'll have to figure out. [Edit] In looking at the ZF4 manual it states it was intended for cars with a bore up to 80mm. I've never been able to get an informed opinion what the difference was between a mag like this and the next size larger. I actually have a bigger 4 cylinder mag (I think it's a D4) but it's actually too big to fit on the engine... I've come to the conclusion that looking for an answer on the internet just leaves me with more questions. Then, because I couldn't think of anything else, I decided to re-make the front bearing holder for the camshaft. The original has a Babbitt lining and is awfully heavy for what it does. I'm trying to save as much weight as possible, especially as I have increased the size of a few parts. Overall, with the aluminum rods and pistons, I think I will be reducing the weight of the engine by at least 30 lbs. - maybe more but every bit counts. (The original piece is in the foreground.)

It looks to me as if the speed was too high for the diameter. What is is made of? It looks like cast iron. Can you heat it and use an "easy out"? You have to be very careful with those because if you break it in the hole you are really in trouble but with fairly large holes like that it should work. I find they are worthless with small holes. You could also drill it out a little bigger...just enough to almost touch the minor diameter of the thread. At some point you'll reduce the stud to just what is in the threads... I'd try the easy out first but not using too much force if it doesn't move. A good trick for removing studs or broken screws is to use a left-handed drill...as it get hot if a chip catches it will unscrew all by itself.

Re the pedestal drill... I find that using my drill press allows me to "feel" the drill better. The milling machine is probably more accurate but you have no sense of when you are pushing too hard. I've also found that having the added clearance under the spindle is a help so...I wouldn't get rid of it. You may find it's just the thing for some job you can't anticipate.

I found a .257 so I think I'll use that. It occurred to me that the hole size isn't as critical as I'd originally thought since both shafts will have to align perfectly in any case.

I finally got to use the dividing head today although I had to stop and try to remember how to set it up. I've only used it 4 or 5 times. Drilling the 18 holes. I reamed these holes 1/4" which leaves no room for a little play. Then I did the 20 holes and threaded them. It goes together but it is a tiny bit tight. I think I should enlarge the 1/4" holes a tiny bit so I'm leaving the setup alone and looking for a .255 reamer. I may have one so I'll have to ransack the reamer drawer before I order one.

I don't know too much about South Bend but I'm guessing that the fixtures to use collets are readily available. My only reservation would be that they are probably small collets. [EDIT] The South Bend 9 used a 3C collet. I don't know what the largest size is but I suspect around 3/4". I tend to use the sizes from 3/4" to 1" most of the time - I don't think I've ever put those smaller than 1/4" in the machine and I may have used the 1/4" once in five years. I also don't think you can get square and hex versions - at least not as cheaply as 5C. What size is your big lathe?

Believe it or not, I finished the backing plate for the dividing head. First, I drilled the holes for the attaching cap screws. I failed to notice that while there was room for the holes there wasn't room for the heads of the cap screws. So I set it up on the rotary table... And made a little centering tool... 1/2" to go in the tool holder and .315 to fit the hole. And counterbored the holes 1/2" to get clearance for the heads. So far, so good. it screwed together just fine. Then I turned the rotary table up and milled the remains of the old mounting holes into slots for a hook spanner. Last, I set the rotary table down and clamped the piece up expecting the threaded holding fixture to be extremely tight. It came right out with very little effort. There it is... my advice is that if you are looking for a dividing head, buy one that has a chuck. Tomorrow I'll see if I can drill and thread the holes in the timing adjuster... so at least I'm back to making car parts.

I should add "who says new is intrinsically better?" As often as not it is just cheaper. Were pot-metal carburetors better than bronze or aluminum ones? They may have been from a design standpoint but the use of pot metal was a cost saving feature, not an improvement. The same rubric applies to many items in everyday life.

Al...who decided that having a lot of something you like is a sickness? It was probably some brain dead reality TV producer who smokes pot and can't compose a coherent paragraph. There is a great deal to learn from have a lot of something. It's only that way you can compare things... About 30 years ago I worked on a book on the American Eagle Hilted Sword with the late EA Mowbray. Mr. M had about 400 of them and a huge amount of what we were able to deduce was the result of making comparisons over a long period of time. If you had a collection of 20, or 30 or even 50 you would never have been able to draw the conclusions that were obvious from having hundreds to work with.

DB Fowler...I think I've seen one English double flint rifle in almost 50 years of studying these things. But, this would be a poor example. There was something wrong with it I could not put my finger on but I have a lot of experience here - I've been doing this since I was 12 years old. In the middle of the night it came to me. A few years ago a friend in the UK published a series of books called "Notes around the gun trade" which is nothing more than copies of disjointed notebooks kept by an English enthusiast and school teacher from about the late 30s to the 50s. He hung around the Birmingham gun quarter and took down the stories told to him by the old timers. In one or more of these he refers to supplying "fake" old guns to seaside hotel owners who would hang one over the fireplace in the hotel and sell it to visiting Americans. As soon as they left, they pulled another one fro the closet and waited for another visitor. That's what I think the double I went to see was. It was made from old parts - which were plentiful in B'ham 80 years ago - but the markings and engraving were off although they would fool most collectors today and any member of the general public. The only reason I noticed was that I've been working on this very narrow area for 35 years. And, just to keep this vaguely car-oriented we should remember the Henry Leland started out at the Springfield Armory during the Civil War. At the time is was, arguably the most technologically advanced manufacturing plant in the world. The Stevens-Duryea was manufactured by the the Stevens Arms & Implements Co., and around 1906 Winchester signed a contract to manufacture Hotchkiss cars (although this never came about). Hiram Percy Maxim - who's memoir "Horseless Carriage Days" is a classic designed the earliest Pope cars in Hartford. Maxim invented the Maxim Silencer and his father is best remembered for the Maxim Machine Gun. Colonel Pope's nephew (who he raised and sent to MIT) was the famous target rifle barrel maker Harry Pope.