JV Puleo

They didn't use .50 caliber machine guns. Capt. Frank Hammer had a .25 caliber Remington semi-automatic rifle. Some of the other agents had .45 caliber Thompson sub-machine guns and most of the holes are from those. It's a pistol round and it will easily pierce any automotive steel. I doubt even an armored car could withstand a .50. It was, after all, designed as an anti-tank weapon by JM Browning in the closing days of WWI. Bonnie & Clyde were psychopathic killers. No one was taking chances they'd be able to return fire though it's probably the case that most of the holes were made after they were both dead.

I would use a rosebud tip. I used a white powdered flux I got at the local welding supply. I just sprinkled it on the seam. I don't know what was in it but likely mostly borax. I'd bend a ring of 1/8 or 1/16 brazing rod around something round so that when it sits on the housing its more-or-less right on the seam between the two pieces. Then train the tip on the hub and turn it so that it heats up all around until the brass melts and flows into the seam.

They were probably "furnace brazed". I don't know if you can get that done today but it's a good idea to check with someone who has experience. If that proves a problem I did something similar once by making a "turn table" and turning the piece slowly while holding the torch on it until the entire end was up to heat. I did the same thing by attaching a piece to the rotary table and holding the torch on it while a friend turned the rotary table. In that case I bent a ring of brazing rod and laid it on the intersection between the two pieces. When it melted it was done. That way you don't take a chance of overheating it and burning all the zinc out of the brass. That's a problem when doing a large diameter because it's difficult to get the whole piece up to temp.

I have confidence in you. As long as you are prepared to start over if something goes wrong you can't fail. Actually, I've found that doesn't happen often but is more valuable as a state of mind. I think you'll find that making parts is nowhere near as stressful as working with original parts that can't be replaced or replicated. I'd concentrate on getting the two bearing races concentric. It would be a good idea to use tubing that is slightly too large on the OD, that way you can put the piece back in the lathe on a mandrel and turn the finished OD to exactly the right size and perfectly concentric with the bearings. If you really want to get wild...think about putting a fine thread on the ends and screwing the flanges on...then braze them. That will never come apart. You can use a thicker wall tubing than the original too...it won't effect anything as long as the axle passes through it and the added weight will be minimal.

Aside from the fact that I'm dizzy with exhaustion at the end of the day, fairly well. I have the kitchen, living room, dining room and cellar torn up. Today I picked up a bed, three lamps and two antique clocks. It's one of those jobs that will not seem as if it's getting anywhere until the last week when, g od willing, everything will come together,

Here is the google patents link. https://patents.google.com/?assignee=Baker+Motor+Vehicle+Co I've found that it's easier to find them through google. That gives you the number so you can then find them on the Patent Office website.

I see. The bearings are mounted in the ends of that tube. Needless to say, they have to be concentric with each other and, ideally, concentric with the OD or the wheel wouldn't be running true although could be out of true a tiny bit and it wouldn't make a difference. I'm notorious for nearly always choosing the hard way to do things but I'd be inclined to make the piece over, starting by getting the two bearing seats in perfect alignment and then turning the OD of the tube off that. Another method might be to in indicate the tube and bore each end for sleeves to hold the bearings. That wouldn't be as accurate because it is very unlikely you could indicate a rough piece like that accurately enough to get the alignment perfect. How did the bad one work you may ask...those Hyatt bearings with the spiral wound rollers were very flexible. They were famous for that and were used precisely because perfect alignment wasn't needed...or better said, the tolerances were very liberal. They weren't all that durable but no one expected these cars to travel many miles and they were cheap to replace. Using modern bearings, which are far better, we don't have that degree of flexibility.

Let me see if I understand...the spokes fit between those two flanges but the OD of that piece is not concentric with the bearings. By the way, this is exactly the sort of problem that comes up constantly when doing pre-WWI cars...and more so with inexpensive cars. Manufacturing tolerances were not anywhere near as good as only 10 or 15 years later. I think, if I were doing it, I'd make the entire piece over but that presumes those flanges either come off or could be made separately and attached.

You are doing a really fantastic job. I had an MGA in the 70s ... purchased because the man I worked with (a really talented mechanic) saw it and said it was the best one he'd seen in years. It had a crumpled front fender which is why it was in a scrap yard. I assure you that it didn't look anywhere near as nice as yours...and I suspect never did, even when new.

You should. With all you know about fitting interiors you'd be half way there. I've had the same thought myself, especially since my mom (who was a child prodigy seamstress and long-time teacher) taught me how to sew. I probably won't because I just don't have the space or any real need for it but it's one of those things I've considered many times. A completely unrelated story but I'll tell it anyhow. At the height of the depression my mom was in Jr. High School. She'd stop at the local mill outlet and buy remnants on the way to school. She used those to make aprons which she brought back to the mill outlet. They sold them for 50 cents. Some weeks she made $4, $5 or $6 which was pretty good money for a Jr. High School girl in 1932...the year your car was built.

I once had the wreck of a very early Panhard. I never determined the exact year but it was probably 1897,98 or 99. It was just a rusty chassis. The top was missing from the transmission/transaxle so that was rusted into a solid lump and the engine was missing altogether. When I bought it I got another Panhard engine...a 4-cylinder that I later learned was made in 1903. That engine was absolutely remarkable because there was no indication that it had ever run. Absolutely every part was new and there was a big inventory number painted on the bottom of the crankcase. I also had a Panhard catalog issued by Smith & Mabley, the New York Panhard agents better known today as the makers of the Simplex. It's one of only two cars I regret selling. I sold it because I'd lost storage and didn't think I'd ever be able to make it whole again. Of course, today I could do it which only makes it's loss more poignant. They were very interesting cars...light years ahead of anything being built in America at the time.

Hoover was a mining engineer and a very successful one. By 1902 he was a wealthy man with mining interests all over the world including Russia and China. Panhard, of course, was the premier car in the world at the time and, as a wealthy engineer, he would have appreciated that. By coincidence, he was in China at the time of the Boxer Rebellion and as the only engineer available, despite the fact that he was a Quaker, designed the defense perimeter of Tientsen.

What are the dimensions of the bushing? I've thought about making a bearing grooving machine...I'll probably get to it when I need to do that. On the rare occasion I've felt the groove would be helpful I've put in a straight groove. In talking to my antique machine friends this subject has come up several times and the general consensus is that the improved oils used today make the groove nearly superfluous. However...I have also looked into doing it in the lathe by setting an extremely course thread. I don't have a setting like that and it's not readily easy with a quick change gearbox but if you have access to a lathe with change gears perhaps you could come up with a gear combination that would give you a long, curving groove. If I did this, I'd either crank the lathe through by hand or set the slowest possible speed with the back gears. There was a short article published in Popular Mechanics many years ago on making a bearing grooving machine from an old, worn out lathe. It's been mentioned on the internet several times without the details of exactly how to do it. I blew up the illustration and found the date and issue of the magazine...then found a copy on ebay for, I think, $5. Now I know how to do it...I just have to find the time.

I like the speedster idea. I can't imagine that Ed actually needs a spare engine. It was built like a truck...has little or no measurable wear and who is better qualified to treat it sympathetically. Besides, I doubt he'd want to replace the engine with another one given how intact the car is. Personally, I'd really like to see what Ed would build.

Thanks Terry...I am making good progress but I still need to get a lot done before the cold weather hits. It's hard enough working in the heat an humidity...it's impossible when it's freezing out. If we have a couple of rainy days and I'm relaxed enough I'll finish the square holes. I'd have done that already but it's something that requires a lot of concentration and I can't do it when I"m tired or distracted. Right now I'm clearing part of the cellar and hooking up a new washer...all that has to be done to get room for the installation of the new furnace. Any one of these projects would be a good summer's work but I have four or five of them in the works. I'm not even going into the shop today...a very rare occurrence but if I spend the day on the cellar I may come close to finishing that part.

I'd be inclined to remove the spring altogether and just use the jam-nut. With the extra nut in place it isn't doing anything and may be in the way for setting the idle.

I would and I have though I think in this case you went way beyond anything that could be hoped for..

I made the mistake of measuring in the middle of the hole, taking the measurements for my sleeves from that and trying to press them in. Some actually went in but others stuck and it was hell getting them out. In one case I had to cut it out with a torch and, of course, then had to make a new sleeve. This is why I crushed one of the front hubs.

Make sure the bearing seat in the hub isn't tapered. This is something I learned doing the Mitchell hubs. When they used drawn cup bearings...the "bicycle bearings" with pressed steel cups, the holes in the hub are often slightly tapered. It was a way of get the cup tight in the hub without having to machine it very precisely since the cups compress a bit. Modern bearing cups don't compress at all and even a few thousandths taper will prevent the new tapered cups from seating.

The talent is out there but you won't find it in what were the conventional places. I know some very talented people but most of them are hobbyists rather than professionals or professionals (like Gary) who are willing to share their expertise with fellow enthusiasts. I'd bet there are some in Australia...but you have to find them. They aren't going to be advertising on the internet.

I've wondered about that myself...all second hand because I haven't had reason to buy reproduction parts but judging from the horror stories I read here it seems they are wrong more often than they are right, so much so that if they are right someone wants to comment on it. I really find it hard to imagine going to the effort of making something and having it not fit. Or is it that the majority of the buyers don't even realize that the parts aren't right.

As the person that machined those bronze impellers I can testify that Gary's castings were really impressive. I've machined a lot of sand castings and the difference between them is remarkable. When centered in the lathe I was able to get those rough castings to run with only .005 runout. I'll add that the sand castings I've worked with are also extremely good which says a lot for the accuracy of the lost PLA process.

What Keiser31 just posted... Also, they often have footman loops to attache them to the trunk rack. All that I've seen are much more robust than a normal steamer trunk.

This is true for many of us who are not all that young. I was disappointed in all the clubs I belonged to when I was in my 20s. Things haven't gotten better.

As I see it, if you are going to include cars from the 60s, 70s and 80s in the "antique" definition ALL of the figures will be heavily skewed by the "fad" factor. I wonder what sort of figures you'd get if you only measured cars that all pre-date their owners. No one alive today remembers brass cars on the road and, effectively, that demographic probably now reaches into the mid 30s. No one that wants one of these cars does so because they coveted one when young. The motivation for coveting those cars is completely different from the "muscle car" world and I seriously wonder if they will hold their relative value when the cohort that admired them in their youth passes on. I have an uncle, my mother's older brother, who is still with us at 105. He was born in 1917. He's not interested in cars but, if he were, any car he remembered from the age of 13 would be a 1930 model. Back in the 70s I remember being told that when the "old guys" pass on the price of brass cars would drop like a rock. It didn't. Heck, I bought a PI Rolls when I was 20 years old...something I haven't a snowball's chance in hell of doing today.