wayne sheldon

Graduated in 1970, graduating class of about a hundred students. Mostly a VERY snooty crowd, sons and daughters of doctors, lawyers, and IBM engineers. Most of the kids I went to high school with were either hippies, or suffered from a severe case of entitlement. I didn't much get along with either group. Probably part of the reason my first real car was an antique, a 1929 REO. I did drive it to school occasionally, but not a lot. A few people in that place I did not trust. I didn't know the kid. Do not remember his name. But one of the "entitled" kids was given a '70 Plymouth Superbird. Even then, I liked the irony of it sharing the parking lot with my REO. Interesting also, is that I was not the only kid in that school that liked antique cars. One of my best friends to this day, was one of my best friends in that last year of high school. At that time, he was restoring a '31 model A Ford sport coupe. And another kid (a year ahead of me) drove a 1937 Packard 115 sedan to school.

Well, i am not an expert on this, but I have read several articles, both modern day (if you consider the '60s as modern day) and a few original era publications. First, someone correct me if I am wrong, but as I recall from a couple articles I read about fifty years ago, the Reeves Octoauto, and its sibling Sextoauto never got beyond a marketing effort. Two cars were built. One on an Overland chassis, one using a Stutz chassis. The cars were reconfigured a few times, eventually being returned to their original forms, and sold as unremarkable used cars. The likelihood of a survivor is rather small. I recall that back in the '60s, Bill Harrah, in many of his cars and parts wanted advertising included both brass era Overland and early Stutz parts were particularly wanted. I thought at the time that it was odd that he was interested in almost any chassis remains of early '10s Overland cars (after all, being a fairly common car, complete cars were not that difficult to get). Until I wondered if what he was looking for was that one chassis with a few extra holes in the frame, in the proper locations of course. I have over the years known several people with early '10s Overland cars. I have heard several stories of Bill Harrah and his huge amount of early Overland cars and parts. I suspect that many people in the Overland community have been secretly looking for "that one". A long time friend of mine has a '13 Stutz touring car that used to be part of Bill Harrah's collection. It is a beautiful car that I have ridden in a couple times. One can only wonder.

Specific year, specific model, specific body style, incomplete cars? A whole lot of ways to count them. All Gray automobiles are quite rare I have always been told. Forty years ago, I knew a fellow, a member of an antique car club that I had belonged to for a few years at that time, that had a beautifully restored Gray automobile. At that time, Bill Harrah was also still alive, and he had one in his collection. Because the cars were so rare, the fellow I knew, also knew Bill Harrah. They consulted with each other during both restorations. According to their research at that time, only seven complete cars were known to exist. Since then, I have heard of two more being discovered. The Gray holds a special place in automotive history. Several people involved with the Gray automobile had been with Ford for quite some time. The car was produced in moderate numbers, and sold quite well. But the venture lasted only a few years, after which the cars suffered a dismal survival rate. From previous discussions on the AACA and other forums, there appear to be quite a few remains of scattered parts around the world. But the last intact car to be found that I heard about made hobby news around the world. But it didn't seem to pressure any more discoveries to be heavily reported. As for part of the thread's original discussion. "Rare" does NOT mean valuable. There are several factors that figure into dollars value. Desirability, artistic qualities, power, potential club affiliations, among other things, all need to be considered in the value. It doesn't matter how "rare" it is. One out of five doesn't do it.

Happy Birthday from Grass Valley Califunny! Another place that continues the "pastie" tradition. Cornish and gold mining history is still celebrated here.

Paul Dobbin, You must be some kind of wacko, just like me. I have also often used something to the effect that to me "an antique car has to be older than I am". My first real car? Was a 1929 REO Flying Cloud Master semi-sport coupe, which was forty years old when I got it in 1969. I was 17, and still in high school. I drove that car to school a few times. About six years later, I came to the conclusion that it was just slightly too modern for my liking, and sold it. It was replaced by a '25 Studebaker, and a long succession of other cars between 1910 and '25. Over the years, I have had several daily drivers not considered as antiques by me including a '52 Chevrolet Fastback and a '65 Ford 3/4 ton pickup. I drove the pickup for 17 years and put more than a half million miles on it before being sold.

Yikes! And, I really don't want to be rude? But there is a whole lot of guesswork going on here. They definitely are two totally different cars. Both of them are so messed up that any "model" identification is pointless. Originally, with a few exceptions (like the hardtops), the bodies (and even much of the trim) crossed through several model variations. The '49 and '50 bodies are almost alike, with trim differences. The '51 and '52 bodies are virtually identical, except for some trim which varied from model to model. The '53 and '54 are very similar, with some differences in the fenders and trim. Regardless, these have been altered enough that those designations are meaningless. I think the first car may be a "Fastback" model. They came in both four-door and two-door in several models, both DeLuxe and standard. From the front angle of the picture, I can't be sure that it is a Fastback, but since I had a '52 two-door many years ago, I think I can see the difference from inside the car. The kicker is, I suspect that the first car may also be a '49 or '50. They are so close to the '51/'52 that although the fenders and hood are different, they can be with some effort interchanged. The second car most likely was a '53 or '54 based on the windshield lines, maybe with earlier fenders. Maybe not. It could also be possible that the windshield was altered and it could be a '52 or even '51. The grills, both of them, fit very badly, and likely were replacements made to fit any Chevy from '49 through '54. The have visual cues for both '51 and '52, but are correct for neither. Several good looks from other views could help narrow down what they were originally. What they are is messed up. So much has been changed on them in the past sixty years that it can only be speculation what else may have been changed, or what they were when new.

Straight-side and clincher tires generally are NOT interchangeable. I gather that your 33X4 clinchers are basically like a 30X3 1/2 model T size clincher, only bigger. There were wheels/rims back in the day that used removable rings on both the inside and outside of the rim. assembled one way, they took clincher tires. Assembled with the rings facing the other way, straight-side tires were used. These rims varied from companies and years of use in many ways. But some way, they had a mechanism to lock one or both rings onto the rim. Finding a full set to make a set of wheels from could be very tough. And in the appropriate size. Many clincher wheels had rims similar to the model T, only bigger. Both sides of the rim rolled up and over to clinch the tire bead under high pressure and hold the tire onto the rim. Clincher tires are a slightly loose fit on the rim, and the bead is soft, made to be stretched over the side of the rim. It is the clincher that holds the tire radially onto the rim (Under high pressure). Straight-side tires are completely different. The bead must sit tightly onto the rim. The bead has to be tough, with a great deal of tensile strength to hold it in place. It has to be very strong, almost ridged, to overcome that same high pressure that holds the clincher by pressing the bead into the clincher rim (and locking it in place), and instead the pressure now tries to blow the tire outward and blow it off the rim (because there is no steel rim clincher to hold the tire down). Most straight-side tires have steel (rods, wires, or cables) in the bead. It is very unlikely that you could ever stretch a straight-side tire onto a clincher rim. If you had a modern tire shop use one of their machines? Chances are good that either the tire, or the rim, or the tire machine, would be seriously damaged. I have seen the results of such efforts a few times over the years. In one case, it was revealed that a tire shop's machine suffered a couple thousand dollars damage. A consideration. A few years ago, I needed some "roller" tires for a long-term project car. I bought a couple used tires at a swap meet, and went to mount them on the car's split rims. When I aired up the tire, something looked wrong. It didn't appear to be seated properly in the rim. I let most of the air out, And went to move the car. Then balooey! The tire bead (even with only about 20 psi) had stretched off the split rim and allowed the tube to blow out under the bead. Under pressure, the bead stretched several inches circumference, although it had gone on tight. Once I got the car moved into place, and on a jack, I removed and examined the tire. All the steel wires inside the bead were broken. Clearly, the tire had been forced either on or off a rim before I got it, by a very powerful machine. Oh well. A couple bucks wasted. But if you try to force straight side tires onto a clincher rim? Broken wires like those may be what you trust your life to. These days, I know a lot of horseless carriage era cars have incorrect wheels on them. Most were changed years ago for the very problem you are facing now. Tires are simply not made for about half the sizes and types that were used before 1920. So, people try to get a set of something for which tires are available, and hopefully won't look too bad. Sometimes they fail on how they look. Your original hubs (or a spare set if you have or can get some would be better), and an appropriate size set of rims for which tires are available, is about all you need before having the wheels made. That and a couple thousand dollars. There are several wheelwrights in the states that do good work on wheels like these. Some charge more than others. Two beautiful cars! I hope you can resolve this problem satisfactorily, and enjoy both of them for many years to come!

That silly looking horn is likely correct. Metz did use one like that on some (not all) model 22s. Other things (colors, finish, that back seat!)? Other people have already mentioned. Except, I am pretty sure that the front axle is on upside-down.

Body style, condition, what do you want to do with it, where are you located????

There was a Falcon Knight sedan many years ago that ended up being owned at various times by a few friends of mine. I have long since lost track of it. I rode in it several times, and followed it on tours often. I never thought it smoked much. I never heard the reason why (not to scare you away!), but something inside the motor broke. The friend that owned it at that time tore it apart, found a donor engine for the parts he had to replace, and did the overhaul himself, being careful to not overly clean many pieces. He drove the car a lot for a few years after. He also said, that although different than what he was used to, it wasn't that difficult to work on. A few years later, he wound up helping another friend (who's father had previously owned the Falcon Knight) rebuild a Stearns Knight engine. The Stearns Knight had a very nice looking cosmetic restoration and was beautifully detailed, but turned out to have serious engine problems, burned out a couple connecting rods. Again, not wanting to scare anybody away from these cars! The engine had not been properly maintained, and gunk in the motor plugged the oil passageways, requiring .a major tear-down. The two of them got in, and cleaned and overhauled that Stearns motor. It ran great as long as I know thereafter. My main point of all this, is that the Knight engines CAN be rebuilt by a good mechanic familiar with antique engines. They do have some peculiarities. But once aware of them, not so bad. One other thing about SOME Knight cars. Some Stearns, and a few other marque models, catered to an elite clientele. They wanted elegance (hence quiet), mostly used in town, and did not care much about speed. That Stearns was one of the most beautiful and elegant antique automobile sedans I have ever seen. However, it was slow. The rear end gearing was so low, that the fastest that car could go was about 35 mph. The owner decided to not try to modify the car for higher gearing, sold the Stearns and bought a P1 Rolls Royce soon thereafter. If you want to tour the car extensively? You may want to see if you can easily count the gear ratio. 5 1/2 to 1 isn't very fast. While the engines are strong and fairly reliable, they are not high rpm capable. Better gear ratios seem to make good tour cars. I have followed several on tours at various times. A little smoke? Yeah. But most were not bad to follow, even when driving an open car. I would love to have a Knight engine car. But that is another of my many wants I will probably never achieve. Good luck!

There are those of us that restore model T Ford speedsters, both the factory kit bodies, and the home-made bodied cars, as faithfully as we can to how they were "back in their day". True vintage customs are as much a part of our automotive history as any Packard or Pierce Arrow. While I personally have little interest in such newer vehicles, I think cars like this also deserve preservation and restoration. I hope this unusual car can get the attention it also deserves. Restored to present itself as it should have been when new. An original Champion Body boat-tail roadster I restored some years ago. (I hope I remember how to post a photo?) Wish I still had it.

Beautiful! What is not to love about a Pierce Arrow automobile! Any, Pierce Arrow automobile. I hope you are getting something fantastic to replace it.

C Carl, I am still trying to ignore that Graham engine, but yes, it should be saved. My situation is precarious at best, and expected to remain so for awhile yet. I cannot at this time pay anything for something I do not have to have. I could only offer a decent storage spot where it could sit, probably until I die (which could turn out to be not very long). As long as it was there, and I am still here, it would be available to anyone that needed it for a Graham Paige.

Auburnseeker, No joke. When I was in high school, my dad had business interests in a little town called Laytonville in the way out of the way Northern Califunny area.We spent a lot of time around those old highways and back roads in that area. Old highway 101 in those days was somewhat treacherous. Many short parts of 101 are still to this day only two lane. Back in the 1960s (when we spent a lot of time there), most of the highway still had NO guardrails. Many areas had NO shoulder, and some were only a few feet from the lane to the edge where it was straight down from 30 to more than 150 feet to the rocky riverbed below. During the '60s, the State Highway Department (later called Catrans) started putting up guardrails. As part of my dad's business, he had to deal with the Highway Department, and got to know several of the local officials.We were told, by authorities in the know, that in one particularly bad mile (100 feet straight down), TWO cars had gone over that edge in the ten years before the guardrail was put up. In the three years after the guardrail was installed, five cars managed to flip themselves OVER the rail. Seems a lot of people will be a lot more careful when there is nothing to supposedly protect them from their own stupidity.

The body tub (front half of a touring car) is not Ford (not A or T). It may be a Dodge Brothers, but I am not certain. The rear fender sitting in that tub (on the seat frame) is model T (1917 through '24 left rear).

Years ago, one of my wife's cousins had quite a reputation for drinking and driving (can you say "idiot"?). Early one morning, speeding in great excess, he attempted to cross a one lane bridge in very heavy fog (he had been told that if he was late once more, he would be fired from his job). Unfortunately for him, there was a fork lift going the other direction. He survived. But the fork took a chunk out of his ear. It took about an hour for responders to get him out of his car. And yes, he lost his job (it was the company's forklift). Just thought I would share that.

I will try to keep this short. Another possible reason why some engines may have a bunch of sludge, while others did not, would be the choice of oil used. The chemical base for oils are different from different parts of the world. Paraffin based oils have superior lubricating qualities, however, they tend to build up much more sludge than the more common asphalt (or ash) based oils. The many years where this was a problem included the '30s (when paraffin oils became more common in the marketplace (due to the depression and producers looking for new markets), through the '40s, '50s, and '60s. After that, refining technologies improved, and the sludge build-up became less of a problem. Another little known issue, was that the asphalt and paraffin oils in those days should not be mixed together. They had a reaction to each other that resulted in even worse sludge build-up. This was seldom discussed, unless you knew someone that took advanced automotive technology and chemistry courses.(I happened to know a couple people like that when I was a child). This was something that generally did not become a problem until a car was old enough that few people cared about the sludge. Often, by then, owners were throwing in whatever was cheap or handy, and the mixture could get really nasty, especially if the oil wasn't changed regularly. One of the first engines I ever reworked, was a 216 Chevrolet that had thrown a rod bearing. When we pulled the pan off the block? The sludge was literally about an inch thick all over the inside (it was almost jello-like). The crank and rods had carved out pathways where they ran close to the block or pan. I can see how that stuff could fill the hollows of a Rolls Royce crankshaft. And clearly a good reason why they should be checked. Neat car Dandy Dave! I hope to see more pictures of it as it goes together. Thank you for sharing this.

I think someone has had too much fun polishing it. Although it does look quite pretty that way, it most probably is late '10s to mid '20s, and likely was painted black on the bucket and nickel plated on the rim. I have a nearly identical one in my parts pile. I would have to find it to see if it is the exactly same or not.

F&J, For the most part, I would say you and I are of much the same mindset. My main observation was that we often discuss cars on the MTFCA forum, and get comments similar to ones posted by several other people on page one of this thread. We discuss them usually as an information sharing exercise, and a learning tool to point out the many subtle changes that occurred during model T production. Ebay, especially the really badly done dealer listings, offer a good platform for those discussions. When the dealers brag about the quality and correctness of their "excellent example" that should become a part of "any fine collection", when in fact the car is a complete fake, pretty much deserves any abuse they get. Way too often, the only thing their listed car is a good example of is fraud. And again, our purpose in discussing such cars is NOT to abuse the car, the dealer, or a potential buyer. The primary purpose is to point out WHY a given car is not what it is purported to be. And that there were many detail changes over the years, and that those details matter as a point of history. I often mention that when I got into this hobby (way back in the late '60s), there was an incredible amount of information that was simply NOT known. People BELIEVED that Ford made all the parts in house for the model T (wrong). They were aware that there were several variations on things like the rear end, but had no idea why or when which ones were used. After 45 years of playing with these silly things? I still don't consider myself an expert. I still have more doubts and questions than I do answers. SaddleRider, My apologies if you think I was disrespecting the CCCA. I have a great deal of respect for them, and their special place in the hobby. When I was getting into this hobby so many years ago, I did what I have often recommended other people should do. I joined a whole bunch of national clubs, read the magazines (still have most of them), and joined a few local clubs also. For a few years, I tried to learn as much of the basics of the hobby as I could. I found that my own preference leaned toward earlier cars. I could not afford to keep a membership going in all the clubs, especially ones that I was not likely to have a qualifying car for. At that time, I let the CCCA go. Many of my long-time best friends are members of the CCCA, and I have been to a few meets where they were showing cars. I have been with the HCCA for many years, and believe they also should maintain a strict standard for the special cars that they represent. The hobby should be about the cars, and the history that they represent. I truly believe that the HCCA and the CCCA are the two best national clubs in the hobby (at least for our part of the globe). Absolutely no disrespect intended for the AACA, who provides this excellent forum and acts as a beacon for antique automobiles of all types (Thank you!). Also, I am totally with you on the sedan/roadster thing. Sadly, I have seen a few nice sedans that were chopped up to make a more desirable roadster or phaeton. This is something that I just cannot understand. There are still many full classic chassis rotting behind garages that could be resurrected into a desired car. How could ANYBODY that claims to appreciate the history or artistry of a wonderful car remove a perfectly good original body and trash it just as a matter of expedient re-creation. If one wants to re-create the dream car that they cannot afford? They should get one of those naked rusty chassis to do so. Personally, I like sedans and coupes a lot. But, then I like them all. poci1957, I don't dare comment too much on some of what you brought up. I would likely wander off into a long rant (me? long winded?) on the modern state of politics and where we are likely headed as a society. "Due diligence" may still exist in the law books. Right next to the passage that it is illegal to tie your alligator onto a parking meter. However, people generally are no longer taught personal responsibility. (Okay, I have wandered far enough already.) SaddleRider (again), My impression is that you are an excellent ambassador for the CCCA! I do remember reading some of those rules in the guide 45 years ago. I liked that then, and like it now.

Some interesting posts on here. This is a different sandbox than I am used to playing in. But many of the comments are very similar to what we get in the model T stuff (believe it or not). How right or wrong a car is, does matter! This is especially true with brass era model Ts, and CCCA classics (probably also muscle cars, but I don't pay hardly any attention to them). I, and a few others, often get ripped on the model T forums for being harsh and picking apart cars listed on eBad for being incorrect. But, the fact is, we don't like to see newcomers get taken for a bunch of money on cars that are more wrong than right. Sadly, most of those newcomers won't see threads like this discussing the realities of such a car that they are considering. I do find it interesting to see some of the same comments (some, almost verbatim). Things like "a fun car", "I like driving by myself", "--- at the right price", basically that if you like it and can afford it, enjoy it! But all too often, people that really can't afford to throw away a few tens of thousands of dollars get caught up in the dream, only to find out that the car they paid two to three times what it was really worth doesn't even qualify for the club or tours they would want it for. Although I have not been a member of it for many years, I know the CCCA is a bit picky about their qualifications, for good reasons and as they should be. The HCCA is also that way, and I often speak out that they should NOT loosen those rules. Although I left the CCCA before they made the big changes some years back, I was saddened when I heard of some of those changes. Some of them? Maybe that had to happen, but not as much I think as they did. In reference to many antique cars and parts, I have often used the phrase "I would rather have a wrinkled original than a flawless copy". I think that fits with a car like this Cadillac. I do like for cars to be resurrected so that they may be seen, heard, and experienced again. Sometimes that means overlooking some flaws in details or facts. But I think that an effort should be made to replicate a real car whenever possible. And definitely, resurrecting from some remaining original pieces should be a major goal.

A few years ago, I would have been offering a safe haven for some of these. But my situation now is not as secure as it was then. I was almost interested in the Graham Paige engine myself, but unfortunately am too broke at this time to justify trying to buy it. I have a '27 Paige 6-45, and one of the early '28 Graham engines is nearly identical to my Paige's motor (I have seen a couple of them years ago, as well as read the Paige parts book. Unfortunately, this particular graham engine is not that one that was a continuation of the Paige motor. It would appear to be a latter half '28 or '29 engine. I suspect a few parts may be close enough to function if needed. And, since I do run into Paige and Graham owners occasionally, I wouldn't mind housing a few spare parts. Unfortunately, the Paige and early Graham crowd are not a very cohesive group. Sad, because the cars have some very interesting history, and were well respected in their day.

Stude24, You should have found that fitting with the small orifice in the vacuum line going into the vacuum tank. Its purpose is as a "backfire muffler". In order to work well under most road conditions (High speeds, going slow, or climbing hills, they needed to use a fairly large line (tubing, usually about 1/4 inch). The problem with that large a vacuum line is that IF the engine backfires (for either timing or fuel mixture reasons) back through the intake manifold and carburetor? The sudden burst of pressure can carry up the vacuum line tubing and if left unhindered, can blow the brass seat out of the tank's top. A simple fix as mentioned above. But very annoying if it happens again and again. That seemingly useless odd fitting provides a break in the pressure flow, a virtual "brick wall" when a burst of pressure hits it. Reasonably steady vacuum flows by it almost without even noticing it, but the sudden burst of pressure and direction change trip up on it almost every time. Years ago, I did have a 1925 Studebaker small 6 that had troubles blowing that seat out from time to time. (Very annoying!) I tried a couple top units. Same trouble. I decided to bypass the vacuum line to inside the car, under the cowl, with a shut-off valve in case I needed it. I don't think I ever needed the shut-off valve. Drove the car for a few years with no more trouble. I suspected the detour with several bends and a few changes in internal size helped to further muffle the backfires enough that the problem went away. The car always ran so nice, I rarely ever heard any misfires. But there must have been a few quiet ones to blow that seat out the way it did.

There have been several antique cars disappeared this way the past few years. One (last year?) was stolen from a model T club national tour (Arizona? New Mexico?). The car was found abandoned a couple weeks later. I don't recall now if the truck and trailer were recovered or not. A few years ago now, a good friend of mine lost an EMF automobile. Most of the car was recovered based on a tip some time later. It took about two years before the majority of the brass (lamps and radiator) were also recovered, based again on a tip of parts for sale. I have heard of several other thefts of antique automobiles inside trailers. More of the antique cars I think have been recovered than the trailers were. My fingers are crossed that the Bugatti can be recovered quickly, as again, it likely was not the target of the theft. I don't get out a lot these days, but will keep an eye out when I am. I am about 150 miles from Corte Madera. Not likely they would end up here, but one never knows. It would be easier to do if the description and message in general were better written. Sad that our society has reached this distressing level. Nonetheless, thank you Bibendnum (CarFreak) for forwarding this.

Way too modern for my interest. But what the heck. We consider model T speedsters and other early era home-built customs worthy of being restored and preserved as part of automotive history, don't we? Why not an interesting custom like this? Home or professionally built? I think something like that should be rescued, and restored to its original vision (as close as reasonable, and maybe a little nicer than its previous finish). Just like we have done with the remains of original speedsters from the era. Certainly, some of that stuff was garbage when it was first cobbled together, and would be better off junked. But I have seen a couple really nice creations over the years. That looks like one of them. It is also a piece of the automobile history scene!

I have run several cars with vacuum tanks. Once you get the bugs worked out? They usually work fine are are fairly reliable. One, that gave me fits for awhile, the car had sat for a few years. The gasoline tank had sat with the cap off for a few of those years, and gotten some leaves and other junk in it. I did a quick clean out, and took the car on a major tour. It started off okay, then developed fuel line plugging issues. We limped along, blew the fuel line out, limped some more, then blew the fuel line out again. All the several times, we checked the float, checked the vacuum tank valves function, always just fine. Got the car going again. Went about ten more miles, and the car did something different. Instead of starving for a plugged fuel line, it got way rich, stumbled, smoked, quit. The float, in about ten miles, had developed several splits from top to bottom, filled with gasoline and sank. I figure that some of the leaves had left an acidic residue which attacked the brass in the float. I had a short piece of fuel line hose in my tool kit. With a little creativity, rigged it into the vacuum line routed through the firewall to inside the car. Using a bolt as a plug, we manually applied vacuum to the tank when we thought it would need it, then plugged the line to the engine to not overly lean the fuel mixture. Kept on touring. Over the next year, I did quite a bit of work on that car, including replacing the failed float. Now, we get to the part that may apply to your immediate problem. The next year, we went on a tour again. Symptoms very much like you describe. But not quite like we had the year before. The car had run quite a ways for awhile, then began doing like you describe. A bunch of roadside diagnostics kept saying the fuel line itself was not plugged (I had blown it out quite well). We limped through the tour, and took the car home. With better than roadside lighting and tooling, I found it. A small amount of upholstery cotton, inside the vacuum tank's top piece itself. Probably the remains of a mouse nest that had been inside the gasoline tank, sucked into the fuel line (causing some of the earlier line troubles), had eventually found its way into the input fittings and the valve chamber itself. It partially plugged the fuel path where it was hard to find, and probably also interfered with the valve's action. Check the valve action. As the float goes up and down with fuel level (in the vacuum tank), the two valve stems also switch up and down. Both up, or both down, One of the two stems will open a path, while the other will close a path. One of them also opens and closes the vent path (probably not your trouble). With the tank top off the tank (always be careful handling as the float supports, springs, and valves can be damaged easily). Rig up fittings and tubing or hoses onto both the vacuum line and the fuel input line.The simple thing to do is just blow (exercise your lungs) into one or the other, while carefully moving the float assembly up and down. Switch it many times and get a feel for it. Both lines should have a clean clear switch from clean open to nearly totally shut. The switch should be swift, and decisive. One direction should be open, the other closed. Always, quick, and decisive. It doesn't get much simpler than that. It would be good to check the vent path also? But the few I have checked seemed a little less decisive with its switching? So, I am a little less sure what to describe about it. Also, be sure that flapper valve between the upper and lower chambers is smooth and flat, seating really well. They sometimes warp with age, and if they are not nearly perfectly flat and seal really well? They will allow the vacuum in the upper chamber to suck the gasoline back up from the lower chamber rather than pulling gasoline from the gasoline tank. Understand, that simple flapper valve is not expected to seal a hundred percent. If that were necessary, they would have used a different type of valve. They are intended to do a quick dump of the upper chamber if needed, without restricting the slow flow down usually needed. The entire mechanism is a marvel of engineering. The fact that so many of them are working so well after nearly a hundred years is amazing. Good luck with it! I hope you find some silly little thing and get it working fine soon. Because they can be frustrating until you evict all those little bugs. (Like a pencil eraser size piece of cotton.)