Spinneyhill

Gidday All, I need an Oilite bush (i.e. sintered bronze, oil impregnated) for the rear of the water pump on my 1930 Dodge 8. The original Dodge 8 parts book number was #303710. The Master Parts Book of 1934 lists it as #383031. The bush is 13/16" OD and 1.125" long. The shaft on my water pump is 0.609" diameter - I don't think it was ever 5/8". The diameter inside the impellor is the same, as it is just behind the front bushing. Can anyone direct me to a source? I have emailed suppliers who list bushes on ebay and some MOPAR and Dodge parts vendors. So far the nearest I have found is 9/16" x 13/16" x 1.25", which would probably fit and the ID could be reamed out and the end trimmed if necessary. Thanks for your help. Graham

I thought they were to control air flow around the engine to improve cooling. The air is forced out through louvres in the bonnet/hood and the gap at the rear rather than just falling out the bottom, where there is a low pressure zone that will "suck" it out without any help in cooling, esp. at the rear of the engine. Cylinders at the rear need all the help they can get to keep cool.

The Coupe Express has a 1939 Commander chassis and springs etc., except there are extra helper spring leaves on the rear. All running gear is 1939 Commander. The cabs are the same as 1938 with 1939 front clip but 1938 bumpers and bumper guards. 1200 were made and I think something between 50 and 100 survive, based on a count of those in the SDC and Antique Studebaker Club membership lists. The car has no factory options. There is an aftermarket heater under the dash. I have fitted a '39 overdrive (it had a '38 in it when I bought it). I think it came to NZ with 4 others as chassis cabs, probably built South Bend. I can account for four of the five (two survive). The fifth may be in a landfill - it may have been abandoned on the side of the road in the southern South Island. The engine is a 245 cu. in. from a 4E truck in the mid '50s. This is the 1949-50 Commander motor and is similar to the 1939, but with a longer stroke. The spare wheel should be in the left front 'guard; one can see the weld bead in places underneath where the opening has been filled. A restored 1938 RHC long chassis version was sent back to USA a number of years ago. It was rumoured to have been bodied as a hearse in NZ.

I would sort out the ground = earth and then wonder if sealed beam lights would be better. The car is worth more if it is original as far as possible. Put in a good solid wire. You could even put in a temporary wire (or even a hole set to the headlights) now with new bulbs and see if there is any improvement. You don't need it to be hidden if you are experimenting. Remember the amperage on 6V so put in beefy wire. I think the wiring diagram will give you the minimum (in size not number) gauges to use. [Wire gauge is another of those daft ideas that hang around where the smaller the gauge the bigger the wire. Why not just use, say, 1 square mm wire and remove all the mental gymnastics?] My Coupe Express is not very presentable. Here is a photograph from about 1993.

I was told years ago by a conservator/restorer that oil of wintergreen - methylsalicylic acid or methyl sour - is the best penetrating oil there is. It also makes your work smell nice and clears the sinuses while you are on the job. No wonder people like it. Chloroform is an anaesthetic and highly volatile! Calms your troubled mind before putting you to sleep. Take care using this stuff. Carbon tetrachloride used to be used in dry cleaning. It is highly carcenogenic. This will be where the purported cleaning action comes from, perhaps. When we were put onto unleaded high octane fuel (no ethanol yet) I ran kero about 1 to 20 in my 1930 Dodge for a while. After a while I couldn't be bothered and noticed no differencee without it. After all, unleaded fuel was all there was in 1930. I also tried a lead additive - the spark plugs lasted 1000 miles and then failed. Pretty much all of them at once. So no more additives. If I plan on leaving it for a while, I squirt some Shell Ensis into the carb. before shutting it down. Ensis has very high surface tension and wicks its way into small spaces. No stuck valves with Ensis. An aero museum in Christchurch inhibits the aircraft engines with Ensis. The only down side is the smoke.

If I ever replace the wiring harnes in 1939 Coupe Express, I'll get an extra wire put in the headlight wires to take a good earth to the lights.

OK, ask the historical centre different questions? Ask for board meeting papers, engineering dept papers, anything that might discuss the development and production of 1940 models. You can be specific and also try being non-specific. They do have production figures, coz they are in the book I have. Maybe even ask them how to find out what you want to know. I think the reasoning on the frame design is more engineering than scientific. Science is the strength of materials, metallurgy and so on. Engineering is the use of mathematics and science and reasoning and judgement and technology to arrive at a design.

Have you approached GM or Chevrolet to see what historical records they have? I would imagine a board meeting would approve the production of the model after a 1 year hiatus. They may have the board paper about it and maybe even some engineering records. Good luck!

I agree with Wayne. OK, how long does it take to develop a new model? 18 mo.? more? When did they decide to make an all-new Chev for 1941? I suspect the planning would be 18 mo. to 2 years ahead. So once the 1941 decision is made, what do they do about 1940 (1939 already committed)? Rush something, like the new chassis? No. It probably would not fit under the older body shell. So they use the existing stuff and "facelift". Is that what happened to the other Chev models? When was the first 1940 cabriolet made? Early in the production run? or later? If later, I would suspect there was buyer pressure to produce a cheap cabriolet and they kludged something together with what they had, to keep buyer loyalty and to keep their space in the market. They must have run it hard on the proving ground and made improvements to rectify problems found. The model sounds like an intermediate version, converting from 2 to 4 seats using the existing production as far as possible. You say the plate is often removed by hot-rodders. Do they strengthen the chassis, such as box the side rails, when they do that? I would imagine the car will flex a bit more with a larger engine and heavier brakes, undercarriages and so on. How many miles have these hot rods done? Any done 100,000 mi.? Can you look at the chassis for cracks? I would be reluctant to "improve" something by removing something the factory put in. They never add things for fun - it has a significant cost and that is everything to the management, to the shareholders and to the buyers. One more thing. Perhaps you would like to look into how GM ran its brand divisions. How separate were they and how much sharing was there, including in the design devisions? How do the cars compare in size, weight, performance and so on. Longer span (=wheel base) = heavier beam (=chassis) to mount the car on. How many of their brands had the same wheel base? When did they introduce all new cars in the other GM brands? I think there would be some corporate planning to roll out new designs across the brands in a controlled sequence and manner. Production costs and the market place (and their spin = advertising into the market place) must govern everything they do if they are to maximize profit. I think you are obsessing about this chassis in isolation. You need to consider it in the light of all GM brands and models and the planning and design thereof, as well as how they were competing in the market place. Responding to Ford and Chrysler, for example.

The earth for the headlights is dodgy at best. Check the voltage at the bulbs. Even with a new loom, you may still struggle to get good lights unless you tidy up the earths. They earth through the headlight reflector, to the headlight shell, to the fender, to the frame holding the fender up (radiator surround) to the chassis. Originally then from the chassis to the battery, but many have the battery earth to the engine, so the earth then must be through the engine earth strap into the engine. There are a lot of places to lose voltage due to resistance. Are you a member of the Studebaker Driver's Club or the Antique Studebaker Club? The vendors will advertise in their magazines. Is there also a Rhode Island wiring harness company?

I have used "talcum" powder. But the tire moves and pulls the tube and looks like it will pull the valve stem out. I tried suds once. A couple of years later it was still wet inside the rim and there was rust. The hard thing on narrow locking ring rims is to get the tube valve and rust band in at the start. After that it is much easier. The problem is opening the tire wide enough to get the rubber and one's hand in there to push the valve stem through.

I also learned that tube protector flaps (for wire wheels) must be continuous, not an overlapping strip. The tube pinches at the overlap. After several pinches, I replaced them all.

1941 totally new, with wheelbases 3" longer than previously. All-steel welded bodies (my 1930 Dodge has that!), concealed running boards and the front seat was 3" wider. Convertible 125 lb. heavier too. They made over 15,000 that year. They probably put out a 1940 convertible because there had been demand in 1939, after there having been one in 1938 and 1937.

Sounds like a rushed last minute fix-up. Maybe they had no intention of making a convertible and someone decided they wanted one at the last minute? Maybe they got caught out by other makers making changes and rushed something out to keep a presence in the market place. "Sixty Years of Chevrolet" by George H. Dammann (revised ed. 1972) says "The in-out-in-again convertible returned this year, but as a totally different concept than before. No longer was it a 3-passenger car with rumble seat. It now was a modern full 6-passenger vehicle with trunk, and with all of the passengers enclosed when the top was raised." So it looks like a bit of flip-flop management with the engineering dept running to change direction and keep up. The new chassis was not ready so they cobbled the old one together for the heavier car - and no doubt learnt a lot in the process. They were attempting to move from the "old folks car" idiom into a style for the youthful, according to Dammann. Did the other chassis you mention have different wheel bases and perhaps treads? So they continued with the old chassis design and beefed it up a bit. How many survive? It looks like they made 11,820 of them. They were the heaviest Chevs that year. Have you seen any factory service bulletins? Maybe there is something there about problems keeping them on the road. What about company employee magazine or newspaper? Studebaker had one at different times, GM surely did?

The front and rear inner members do not line up. There is no transfer of force between them. It must go into and along the cross member, which will apply a twisting motion to it. The plate provides for transfer of forces across the cross member between the front and rear inner members. It will also provide some lateral restraint, reducing the tendency for the long rear members to twist and buckle under compression (e.g. on a jack under the middle of the side chassis rails). The top plate just behind the cross member is above the universal. It could be to assist with prevention of buckling when the vehicle is on its wheels (top flange under compression), but also may be a safety guard above the universal in case it disintegrates and something goes upwards. The large cutout in the left rear member will also be stabilized a little by this top plate. You see in the '41 chassis the X members line up across the middle, allowing direct transfer of forces.

My 1930 Dodge has 5.50 x 18 tires. I had one 6.50 x 18 as a spare and it was smaller than the others! Apparently bias ply tires were also availble in different aspect ratios.

It looks like cheap structural strength to me. A cheap fix to a problem they had that year and fixed the next with the new chassis. Maybe the model was rushed into production and perhaps the chassis was not really designed for convertible use. The front members are wide and heavy on each side of the gearbox. The rear members of the X are narrow and taller. There is a (lateral) stiffness change and there would be a stress concentration where the rear X members join with the cross member, resulting in cracks. This way, they reduce the stress by spreading the load further back into the rear members, laterally into the cross member and forward. The will greatly improve lateral and sagging stiffness of the chassis. You might also find the rear and front members don't quite line up across the cross member. Does the car sag? Are the door openings equal top and bottom?

Maybe the 1950 engine is a Commander, 245 cu. in. if it looks like your 226 cu. in. '39 engine. The water pump will look different, but the block and head will be very similar. The bore is the same, the stroke is longer. If it is not that big, it is a Champion engine. Mine has a 4E series truck engine in it - very similar to the 1950 Commander engine. BTW, did you look inside the O.D. before installing it? The planetary gear needle bearings and the sun gear carrier are prone to wear. Big end knock?

The knocking noise might be the fibre timing gear. Mine did that and one trip when I was 200 miles from home it dropped a couple of teeth. I managed to get a 2nd hand replacement (it was a holiday weekend too) and changed it on the side of the road. Luckily I was in Christchurch on a quiet suburban street (although the cross fall was horrendous). It was a tough weekend. I didn't know Christchurch, knew nobody, it was long before cell phones and I walked for miles. Mine knocked quietly at idle too. Get your mechanic's stethoscope (long screwdriver) and listen around the front cover (mind the fan). When I overhauled the engine later, the rebuilder said the second hand gear was better than the new one I bought for the job and refitted it. Hmmm.

Do the bolts holding the crown wheel on the carrier have bent up locking tabs? My 1930 DC does. They don't work. A bolt broke in mine and was pushed through the rear cover at the bottom. Luckily it didn't go through the pinion, which may be what happened to yours. Every bolt was loose in mine, even though all the tabs were bent up against their bolt. My rear cover had already been repaired for this failure too. I drilled and wired mine in pairs. Just something to be aware of...

I have not heard of pre-war springs with "sliders" or any low friction insert between leaves, but then i don't know many vehicles other than my own. Your first couple of photos look more like the springs were wearing gaiters, perhaps of canvas or something similar. What are those scraps of woven material under the top plates? What are those flakes of metal in one of your pictures? From between leaves or around them? Just rust from the springs? My 1939 Studebaker had tin plate gaiters, with canvas inside around the springs to contain the grease. They were "sealed" at the ends and were supposed to be greased. A special fitting was required so they weren't greased often, if at all. They would take a lot of grease too. The net result is that the grease dries out. The grease they used may have contained graphite, which is lower in the galvanic series than steel, so once the gaiter starts to break up (canvas is porous anyway) and the grease dries, moisture gets in and the springs corrode rapidly (galvanic corrosion), as yours have. Even if the original grease did not contain graphite, it did (and still does I believe) contain clay, which adsorbs moisture once the oils evaporate and causes corrosion in much the same way. Leather is not low friction material and would wear out between leaves in no time. "Plastic" is also no good. You must have the rright product, if using one. Isn't a PTFE compound the usual insert to put between spring leaves? Is that what Durasurf is? Before proceeding, make sure your U-bolts and so on are long enough to contain the total height of springs plus inserts. Are those rubber spring bushes? Steel outer and inner sleeves bonded onto the rubber? Pull them out of and into the spring eye using washers, pipe sleeve, lubricated bolt and so on. If they are, don't tighten the centre bolts through them until the car is on the ground. They work by the centre sleeve being held stationary in the shackle and the outer sleeve rotating with the spring eye by twisting the rubber. If the inner sleeve rotates, it will wear the bolt and itself - there is no lubrication. The shop manual should tell you about this anyway. The parts book may show washers, perhaps "anti-shake", at one or both ends of the inner steel sleeve to enhance the grip inside the mounting bracket when you tighten the bolt.

Hello Barry. I use a brass wire brush to shine the parts after zinc plating. It changes the matt blue-grey into shiney silver. I am not sure if you do that or not. Excellent way to do a restoration: buy it ready to assemble. Not too much dirty stuff to do!

Another wildcat thought for you. My 1930 Dodge Brothers Eight has the front engine mounts formed from a plate bolted to the front of the engine under the timing gear cover. It is bent up at the ends to form bolting points to the chassis and to brackets attached to it. There is maybe 5 mm of "rubber" body mounting under the mount. The car is very smooth - you can balance a 20c piece on edge on the top of the engine while it is idling. The plate is 5 mm thick. The crankshaft (as denoted by the crank handle hole in the bottom of the radiator) is below the chassis. I would imagine road roughness bumps would put significant loads on the engine mounts. The chassis moves upwards and downwards rapidly at speed so the forces on the engine could be significant. I would try to make some allowance for them, but I don't know how at the moment. With fairly stiff springs (e.g. for some attempt at racing handling) you will get forces and movements more than you might expect. For transmitting shear, how does the cross-sectional area of steel of your proposed RHS compare with the original mounting cross member? I wonder if 3 mm wall thickness is too thin. What is the chassis made of? Is that 0.164" (about 4 mm)? Could you improve the knee joints' bending moment capacity if you use the RHS with the long dimension vertical across the bottom and for the chassis mounts and laterally for the sub-vertical members? This will, however, reduce the longitudinal resistance to movement of the engine and transmission. Have you checked deflections (strains) as well as stress? The design might turn out to be governed by deflections rather than stresses. No doubt you are familiar with steel structures design code(s). I just thought they might be a useful reminder of what you need to consider.

From the structural point of view, you would be better to have single diagonal members from the chassis attachment to the lower horizontal member. That way you only have two knee joints, at more than 90°. Think of a truss - they don't have that inefficient rectangular shape. It will also be cheaper to make this way - fewer joints - and there will be fewer welds with the possibility of failure. The forces will be more axial with less bending moments in the joints. The car manufacture would have bent something up. The 1939 Commander has an inverted U-shape front cross member with a "sag" in it, but not to the degree you appear to be looking at. The chassis on the Commander is an open channel as yours is and the cross member is rivetted to the top and bottom flanges as well as the web of the channel. You will need to use high strength friction bolts at least, with no threads in the connection; it should really be rivetted. (A car with bolted chassis like that would probably not pass the low volume vehicle safety inspection here.) You will be applying torque to the chassis with the mounting you propose and the chassis will probably deform in time and crack. I think you are way short in your design loads. You have a heavy engine (= inertia) with a chassis bucking (up, down, left and right) and twisting under it. The engine will also rock quite a bit on that single front mount - the rear mounts will reduce the rocking, but the engine is long as well so will twist. (Were the racing engines on a single front mount?) The dynamic forces will be considerable - could they be 5x as much as the static force? The "rubber" mount will soften some of the movement but absorb little of the energy so the engine will still move relative to the chassis. In building base isolation we use "rubber" for springs and lead or steel plugs to absorb energy (i.e. like a shock absorber) and thus reduce movement between the ground and the building. The original cross member was substantial for a reason and not to just hold up the engine.