James_Douglas

It Does seem high. If, and that is a big if, the sheet metal is in as good as shape as the seller is maintaining then it may be worth it. I have looked at about 15 cars in the last 18 months from 1945 to 1966 and all of them had either rust issues or so many previous paint jobs that without taking it apart there is no way to know what is under it all. Excellent body cars are getting hard to find. Yesterday I went and looked at a 1950 Imperial. $20K. The thing was a rust bucket. "a little sill rust" is what the owner told me on the phone. The entire rear right sill is gone. A quick look under the floor carpet and the pans look like hell. There is another Imperial on ebay bu a guy in LA. Says it has like 35K miles on it. I ask for service records to back it up and he says he has none just his "experience" that it is a low mileage car that was repainted about 30 years ago. If it only has 35K why was it painted? Oh, he is asking $40K plus for it. So much fun...

I just talked with the owner. I may go look at it in the next few days. Since I have the concourse restored 1949 Desoto Convertible...I know the car inside and out. This one, I would use as a driver. My only real concern is the availability of the rear glass. I have piles of drums and other chassis parts, extra engines, and transmissions.... So, other than 1950 Chrysler Body items, I am covered. We will see. James

Apparently not...

Thanks, I sent the seller a note and he did not see it...

Hi All, I may be taking a look at a 1954 Chrysler New Yorker 8 Passenger. I drive a 1947 Desoto Suburban, so I am somewhat knowledgeable on the MOPAR LWB cars. What I would like to know is has anyone ever seen the cowl tag on one of the 1954 Chrysler New Yorker 8 Passenger cars? The owner looked it over and only found the serial number on the plate in the drivers door hinge as usual and the Briggs tag on the firewall, but no cowl tag with all the configuration information. I managed to find a bad photo on the internet of one with a engine bay shot and it does not look like there is one on it either. Can anyone shed any light on this? Perhaps they used a different location or on the very low production cars they just did not use one. In addition, if there is anyone out there that has extensive knowledge of this model I would appreciate a change to give you a call and talk about it. Thanks, James

I have known of a couple of people over the years with Imperials from 1949 and 1950 that love the tappets. Much quieter than the solid lifters. Hydraulic tappets only get noisy if you don't keep your oil clean which in my case never happens. I am also going to be doing some things on this engine that will make it a little harder to get the side covers off. Not impossible, just more work. If I use hydraulic tappets, I can seal the side covers using stronger sealant and not worry about having to clean it off every few years to get them off and on without leaking. This car is going to be used extensively to travel the USA and I am looking for ways to make it easier on my bad back. Not like you can stop into any shop anymore and find people who have the knowledge or experience to quickly and correctly adjust valves. Hell, most of these kids cannot set a point dizzy or carburetor. James.

I would love to see a photo of the hydraulic lifters in the late 1949 and 1950 Chrysler 8's. I would also like to see what modifications they did to the engine blocks to feed the lifters with oil. I am building a very special flathead six and I would love to use hydraulic lifters in it. Anyone have an photos of their rebuild? Thanks, James

Karl. Did you ever find one of these? My master parts book shows that the engines with the stock mechanical tappets and these are the same. I was thinking of adapting some to a 265 six I am building up. Do you have any photos of them or their dimensions? Thanks, James

I noted that. As much as I do not like regulation, I think ALL estate sellers and the like who are handling the liquidation of an estate should not by law be allowed to get a percentage. They should bill only on billable hours. They also should by law not be allowed to purchase directly or indirectly anything from the estate. I have seen where something is quite valuable and they buy it themselves or have their brother-in-law do it and then flip it for a big profit and the estate gets the short end. With classic cars like this I see an estate wait and wait for liquidation so that the estate agent holds out for a larger commission when they have a perfectly reasonable offer based on the published book value which is built on actual sales at auctions and confirmed private party sales. My 2 cents worth this morning.... James

Well, I offered them $11,500 as is where is without and outdoor look or a road test OR $13,000 with an extensive look outside and a highway road test. They came back with $15K and I told then no. The median NADA/Hagerty value is about $9500. The tires are shot on this car as well as the other items. It has not been driven much in years so it will need a complete brake job at a minimum. The estate people no nothing about cars. They just know they get a percentage so they keep waiting and waiting for the proverbial sucker. I will keep an eye out for 1956 to 1962 Imperial 4 door hardtops that are in very good to excellent condition and with AC. James

I went and looked at it yesterday. It is in such a dark storage space that one cannot see much of anything under the car. It ran, sort of. I could feel that the engine was in need. Also several items did not work. Tires are so old that they have aged out. I made, via email last night, what I considered a reasonable offer given the condtion. I have yet to hear anything back. If you look at the Model A and the other car they are selling one sees a pattern of asking very high prices and looking for people with more money than good sense or people who have no idea what they are looking at. I am not one of those but as B.T. Barnum said a sucker is born every minute. The car does not have AC or rear Defroster nor auto pilot nor much of anything else but a radio with the power antenna. We will see what is anything the seller says. It has been on the market for months. James

Hi all, I am a long time car guy, but never had or worked on a Buick except my friends 1936. A 1962 Convertible has come up and I may go look at it tomorrow. Can folks with knowledge on these years/models give me some idea as to their weak points so I can take a hard look at it? I know these are unitized construction and I am sort of loath to do another unitized car after my early 1960's MOPAR experiences as well as my XKE rust hell. This car also has the aluminum V8 in it. Any thing also on the convertible top mech that I should be concerned about? Thanks people, James.

Paul, Thank you!

Hello, Can someone decode this tag for me. I am not an OLD's guy so I don't have any documentation. I MAY become and OLD's guy... Thanks, James

Rusty, I have not been on this forum for a while. But I got a question from it so I dropped on to answer it.... I did find a little book last year made by Gyrol on fluid drives. It goes into a little detail about the fill level and the stall speed. Draining half the oil would not be a good idea. A change of 10% is al I would do up or down. Remember that the fluid coupling has no stator. Therefore it will never work like a torque converter. There is never any torque multiplication. If ones fills it up to much, then there is no room for expansion when it gets hot and it will explode. By changing the fill level, you shift the RPM when it locks to 1 to 1. You never change the torque curve just the RMP point when it does. Tractor fluid does not, I am told, have the extra VI and Circulating additives. Also, I am told by Gyrol that they break down after about 5 to 7 years and that a coupling should have the fluid drained at that interval. The Mobile DTE can be had via Granger. It is a little pricy however. You pay for those additives. James.

Thanks Bob. I had a Bug Eye and a MGB, not to mention my '63 E-type. That material is close but more of a ribbed material than a pebble grain. I found a place with a pebble grain, though not as deep. Whispermat® HEW/PGW Floormat by American Acoustical Products Thanks for the tip though I will keep it in my reference. Best, James

You may be correct. However, on ebay there is a photo of the trunk of a 1949 Sedan. On the right behind the tire you can clearly see the same material. I know where there is a 1949 Sedan that is orginal across town. I am going to take a look and see if there is any of this stuff in there. Best, James 1949 DeSoto Custom Trunk Factory Photo UB0815 IKAWO9 | eBay

Anyone find a source of the original trunk material for the 1949 and perhaps 1950 Desoto? It is a very deep and large pebble grain black leatherette. SMS, Original, Restoration S&S, Hirsch, and all the others do not have it. Any help would be great if someone has found some or something close. Thanks, James

These things are a pain in the butt. I had issues with them on my 1949 Desoto Convertible. I think they are the same. The one thing to BE CAREFULL about is the clips. They are non-existent. If I was to do it again, I would put NutCerts into the holes in the body and then drill and counter sink the molding and then send them out to be chromed. That way, I could use polished stainless oval head machine screws to put them in place. It would look nice and be a lot easier to do than hunt for clips that do not exist. Best, James

Turns out it was in fact the interrupter switch. The piston for some reason was retracting slow and holding the switch open too long thus killing the engine. After about 50 miles the problem went away. The piston must have freed up.

Rusty is very knowledgeable about fluid drives compared to the average car guy. However, on the subject of what fluid to use I think his information is only partially accurate. In particular, the comments about not draining and refilling the coupling as well as using a generic ISO fluid. Read below why I think those recommendations are not good ones. In 2009 I did some research, which took a year, and did a short write up on it. I am posting a copy below for those who have an interest in such things. Best, James ************************************* Technical Note on MOPAR Fluid Couplings (Fluid Torque Couplings are NOT covered by this Technical Note) By James Douglas – San Francisco Having run several types of oil in MOPAR “Fluid Couplings” over the years and heard many recommendations, I decided to see if I could approach the issue of what lubricant to use in one of MOPAR’s Fluid Couplings by a more scientific method. As is well known, Chrysler instructed all owners to use “MOPAR Fluid Drive Fluid” only in their Fluid Couplings. Problem is, MOPAR stopped making it decades ago. My first stop was Chrysler Historical. After a month of looking, I was told that they do not have any of the original engineering information as to the specifications of the fluid. Then I headed off into internet land to hunt down anything I could find on the subject from ORIGINAL sources. I managed to find an original Chrysler Question and Answer sheet from 1939 about fluid drive from Chrysler Engineering. In it they stated: “…The proper fluid is a low viscosity mineral oil, which also servers to lubricate the bearing enclosed in the coupling. The pour point is such that the oil will pour at the lowest anticipated temperature, and has no corrosive effect on the steel parts of the unit.” All well and nice, but not enough to figure out exactly what they used as fluid. Later in the same document they talk about the types of metal used and the carbon-graphite seal. Hum, carbon-graphite seal. I did some more digging for a few months and turned up a can of unopened original MOPAR Fluid Drive Oil. An analysis of that oil, and some more literature I ran across, stated that the original fluid was a pure-base mineral oil with a Saybolt Viscosity of between 100 and 150. The fluid had a Viscosity Index of greater than 80. The fluid had anti-foaming and anti-oxidation additives. It specifically did NOT have any seal swelling agents as these can attack the carbon-graphite seal and the copper in the bellows. This last specification eliminates most modern transmission fluids. After finding several formulas to convert Saybolt Viscosities to Kinematic Viscosities, it appears that the best match to the original specification is ISO 22 or ISO 32 oil. However, the ISO 22 is just below 100 Saybolt and the ISO 32 is much higher than 100 Saybolt. Based on a period (c.1947) Lubrication Industry article on fluid couplings that had the following admonishment: “Contrary to popular supposition any attempt to use a higher viscosity fluid would actually reduce the torque transmitting ability of the coupling since torque-transmission is dependent upon a high circulation of fluid between the impeller and runner and is not caused by any viscous drag between the two.” During my continued research on the history of the Fluid Coupling, I ran across the fact that the original company that licensed the fluid coupling technology to Chrysler is still in business and still making fluid couplings for industrial applications. After a couple of weeks of digging, I found a senior engineer from that company that would have a long technical talk with me on fluid couplings. In essence, he agreed with the period information I quoted above. He added that the lowest viscosity oil that would still provide for bearing lubrication is the one to use in theory. However, he did say that unless the fluid coupling bearing has been replaced and is know to be very high quality then err on the heavy side viscosity wise. Just don’t over do it, he stated. I was also told that normal hydraulic fluid does not have large amounts of anti-foaming agents in them as they usually do not have large amounts of air in the systems to foam in the first place. A fluid coupling is only filled to 80% and as such has lots of air in it. Therefore, when looking for fluid coupling oil, one must look for an oil that is a “Circulating Oil” which has a lot of anti-foaming additives in it. I was also informed that the additives tend to have a shelf life in the can, or in use, of 5 to 7 years and it should be changed at that time. I was also told that the couplings are actually somewhat permeable and water vapor will work its way into and then back out, when hot, of a steel fluid coupling. Very little amounts, but apparently is does go on. I was also told to never use engine oil or ATF as both would cause problems in the long run. Based on the research and discussions I have come to the conclusion that ISO 32 hydraulic oil with the proper additives and VI (Viscosity Index) above 80 is a suitable replacement for the original MOPAR fluid drive fluid. ISO 22 would be a better exact match, but only if the quality and condition of the bearing is know in a particular coupling. The oil I have identified that meets the specification, with a higher general viscosity to deal with the age of the bearings, is: Mobile DTE light circulating oil ISO 32. This oil is available at Granger. I have run this oil for about six months in San Francisco city traffic as well as up steep mountains on very hot days. The coupling works well. I have noticed, and other car people have as well, that the car seems to move out from a dead stop to 10 MPH better with the fluid. Only a before and after session on a dynamometer would tell for sure, but I feel that it moves out much faster. Classic car owners are advised to use this information at their own risk. I am not a fluid coupling engineer, a bearing engineer, or a lubrication engineer. I have done my best to find out what was in the original MOPAR Fluid Drive Fluid. This effort is in essence industrial archeology and should be carefully considered prior to use.

I am having a similar problem and started a thread about it. John (paripam) did you ever figure out what the problem was ? Thanks, James

Hi all, (1949 Desoto S-13) Does anyone have an idea or experienced a MOPAR flathead six that stalls under very hard braking from say 25 or 30 MPH? This car has a flathead six, a fluid coupling, and a m6 Trans. The dashpot magnet is working, however, I cannot tell if the inside of the carburetor part of the dashpot is working. After a day of testing...we ruled out: 1. Carburetor float bowl or sloshing. 2. Intake gasket leaking. 3. Electric Dash Pot - Anti-stall. 4. Carb switch. 5. Vacuum Booster. 6. Idle speed. What it looks like is the Interrupter Circuit on the transmission. When I take off in high range and keep the car below 25 MPH so the governor does not kick-in...and it stays in 3rd (or 1st in low range) ...then I hit the brakes hard the car stops and the engine is running fine. If the car is allowed to shift into high range (2nd or 4th gear) and you hit the brakes hard, the engine stalls just as you come to a stop. Something in the interrupter circuit on deceleration is causing the interrupter circuit to ground the coil longer that a split second. I tired two NOS switches, as well as an old beat up one. The NOS switches do it every time. The old switch, which does not always make contact, when used allows the car to stop without stalling then I get the big clunk as it downshifts very very late. I am wondering if there is an issue with the piston or spring in the trans. Perhaps the forward momentum with hard braking due to the power assist 4 wheel disc brakes is causing the piston and rail to push back to the rear too slow and hold the coil ground too long ????? There is an intriguing statement on one of the manuals on the imperial web site that also makes me wonder if it could be a lack of current problem. How the Hydraulically Operated Transmission Operates (Session 23) from the Master Technician's Service Conference This car is a frame up with all new wires, good grounds, and the like. I do run a set of modern Russell spark plug wires and the issues of reverse current flow and high resistance in the secondary ignition system may be playing a part. Any thoughts from M6 Trans experts welcome. Thanks, James

Thanks for the heads up. Does Larry have a phone number that I could get from you ? Best, James

Having just spent six months on and off dealing with a 1949 Steering box...here are some of my observations. The box was made by Gemmer. The gears are an "hourglass" worm and roller. The design of the box is such that when the worm is off center by more than about 20 degrees the distance between the worm and the roller grows a lot. The was designed that way so it would not bind on turns. The issue is that the worm shaft MUST be centered or you will feel slop in the steering. The worm shaft has a master spline for the wheel and must be straight up when the front end is being aligned. I don't care where the wheel itself is pointing. Many shops will not take the time to turn all the tie rods evenly and I have seen wheels forced onto the spline to get them to look correct. No matter what the master keyway must point up! The other thing that I noted is that the about of worm bearing preload and the total load once the roller is adjusted is way more then one would think by feel. Let me say that again for effect... I purchased a calibrated inch-pound torque wrench and did the calculation to convert from spring scale pounds at the wheel rim to inch-pounds on the shaft nut... When you feel the shaft it feels too tight. But it is correct. Once the wheel is on you don't notice it, but if I did not set it by the book, and just went on feel I am sure that the worm preload and the total load would be too little. I found a 1970 Ross Steering Gear book that covers the Gemmer boxes (Ross purchased Gemmer) and the procedure is the same as the factory manual only they use inch-pound torque wrenches. It also listed the torque for the bolts on the worm and side plates. In these boxes the seal at the bottom is part of the plate. We cut off the seal and milled out the hole and welded in some steel to accept a press in modern seal. Works great. My 2 cents worth...James