neil morse

Starter Solenoid Rebuild As I reported in another thread, my car developed an intermittent starting problem back in April of this year. It would only happen very occasionally, but it was annoying. It seemed like the solenoid was engaging the Bendix, but the starter would not spin. It was not battery-related, and it seemed to "fix itself" after the car rested a bit or after I push started it and ran it for a while. After the third time it happened, I conferred with Don Micheletti about what it might be, and he theorized that the solenoid was only doing half its job. After being educated by him about the anatomy of a starter solenoid, I thought his theory made a lot of sense. As I learned (and undoubtedly most of you already know), the solenoid both shoves the Bendix backward to engage with the flywheel ring gear and at the same time pushes a copper disc forward where it makes contact with two terminals and causes the starter motor to spin. Don explained that if the terminals (really the heads of two copper bolts) get eroded over time from arcing, the disc doesn't make good contact and the starter motor doesn't spin. This theory seemed to explain exactly the symptom I was experiencing, so I decided to pull the starter off and see how it looked. I took the starter and solenoid off the car and took a look. Sure enough, as Don had predicted, the surface of one of the terminals was badly eroded. I then took the whole thing down to Don's shop so he could help me fix the situation. While we were at it, we dissembled the starter motor to check the brushes. They looked almost brand new. The commutator had obviously been turned at least once, but looked to be in good shape. We took the solenoid apart, and found that one of the terminals looked much worse than the other. This was odd because you would expect them to be the same. (More on this later.) Anyhow, Don put the two terminal bolts on his lathe and machined and smooth surface on both of them, being careful to make sure the thickness of the two bolt heads remained exactly the same. We also put the copper disc in the lathe and went over the surface with a piece of emery paper to smooth it out. To be continued.

Welcome to the forum! The power chord to the radio has a fuse housing that attaches to a bayonet mount inside the radio case. Here's what the end of the chord looks like: Unfortunately, I don't know where you can get one of these. You might try calling the folks at Rhode Island Wiring Service. https://www.riwire.com/ They are an excellent company that makes all variety of wiring harnesses. I don't know about the antenna situation. It seems odd that your car has a radio but no antenna. On the closed cars, the antenna was mounted on the roof just above the windshield. I believe that convertibles used a conventional antenna mounted on the side of the hood.

Wow, beautiful car! I bet that turns heads in Germany.

I agree that this car is priced somewhat optimistically. I disagree that it was on a movie set 30 years ago. The set is obviously from "Tales of the City" in San Francisco with the fictional "Barbary Lane" sign. This miniseries was filmed first in 1993 and then a sequel was filmed in 2019. I suspect the photo is from the 2019 filming, given what the seller says about how he acquired the car and what he has done to it.

Did you post this same thing in another Continental thread? I'm having an intense feeling of déjà vu. In any event, I agree completely with all your comments. A ground-breaking original and stunning design from 1939 completely ruined by a ham-handed attempt to "update" it to conform to later trends.

Seems like a very good price given all the work that's been done -- the under hood area looks super clean. But it's very odd that someone would devote all that effort to the interior and leave the terrible rusty dash the way it is. Even the dash pad looks new.

Yes, I concur that the one next to the Dodge is a Pontiac (with a dent in the right front fender).

Yes, good eye! And ... the other one is ... ? (Hint: it's next to a '34 Chrysler Six)

Short answer: NO!

Ouch! I'm so sorry to hear that. I didn't mean to make light of a tough situation. I wish you the best of luck with your surgery.

Haha, come on and man up! 😄 I guess I'm just used to getting my upper body exercise driving my '41 around town. This seems like a very nice car to me, despite the lack of power steering.

Deal of the day!

Looks really nice -- Toby's sister.

John, I've often wondered the same thing. These weren't just tiny mistakes that somehow "fell through the cracks" and went unnoticed. As you say, the process is very lengthy and involved many opportunities for people to intervene or veto the decisions that were being made. On the other hand, it would be interesting to look at the sales figures for '61. These designs offend our sensibilities, but I wonder whether they made much difference with the general public?

Here you go. @Elpad did a fabulous job with this car.

I bought this cable from Bob's Automobilia. I don't know if it's 00, but it works fine. Bob's also sells the correct mesh ground cables. https://bobsautomobilia.com/shop/electrical/positive-battery-cable-1940-53-straight-8-bc-17/

I've never understood what happened to Exner with the '61 designs for Dodge and Plymouth. Yes, they are just bizarre, there's no other word for it. It was as if he dropped some really bad acid! As a kid during those years I used to look forward every year to September when the first issues of Life Magazine would arrive at the house with the ads for the new models. As a 12-year-old in 1960 I remember just being dumbfounded when I saw the new designs for Dodge and Plymouth. The Plymouth front end is even worse than the Dodge. And, in contrast, it was a fabulous year for GM! I remember vividly that the '61 Pontiac just blew me away -- and it was in the era when Pontiac had those wonderful illustrations in their magazine ads. I wanted my Dad to get one so bad!

Beautiful car! If you mean what kind of jack to use in the shop, I would suggest that you get a good floor jack and a pair of jack stands. They are not expensive from places like Harbor Freight. The placement is really anywhere on the frame. Under the differential is good for the rear. Never on the bumper or the body, obviously. As far as a replacement for a portable jack to carry in the car, I can't help you there. I just carry a AAA membership, and hope I don't get a flat!

Of course you are correct, Grant. If you want to compare an apple to an orange to show that you know they are different, why not? 😄 Thank you for stating what you are trying to establish. My understanding is that the answer to the first question you pose is "Yes." Buick went to Fisher and asked for some of the Chevy "A" bodies to use to make a less expensive entry-level Buick Special. (Although some on this thread have argued that Buick got the bodies from Chevrolet instead of from Fisher -- which I gather is irrelevant to what you are interested in.) Now, if I'm following you correctly, we come to your second question, "the crux of what you are trying to establish," which is whether the bodies then had to be modified to make the Buick hood and front fenders mate up or whether the Buick front clip fit on the Chevy body without any modification. And I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that. I don't think you are barking up the wrong tree or that anything you are saying is fundamentally flawed -- you are just asking a question. Maybe someone who is following this discussion knows the answer.

No, you are misunderstanding me. I'm saying that in 1941, the Buick Super and Roadmaster used the General Motors (Fisher) new "C" body. This body was also used by Pontiac, Oldsmobile, and Cadillac. The 1941 Buick Special used either the "A" body (shared with Chevrolet -- your car) or the "B" body. So all I'm saying is that your comparison of a '41 Special to a '41 Super is "apples to oranges." The Super simply had a different body than the Special, so you are not shedding any light on the Chevy/Buick question by comparing your car to a Super. Your car is obviously an "A" bodied Buick that shared a body with the Chevy on the 118" wheelbase. As I understand it, it is not "exactly" the same as a Chevy from firewall to trunk because it used Buick fenders (see Matt Harwood's post earlier in this thread). This thread seems to meander a bit into questions about fender skirts and whether the "A" body was a "Fisher body" or a "Chevrolet body," but I don't think anyone has ever questioned that your car has the "A" body, and therefore "the body shell (firewall to trunk) is the same as a '41 Chevy." I don't think it's really that confusing. Does that help?

It's tough to tie up 107 horses! [edit] That's Evelyn Keyes, by the way, during the filming of "The Desperados" (1943) with Glenn Ford.

Yes, the Super has the "C" body which is different than either of the bodies used on the Special. So that fact that the Super has a different body doesn't really answer your initial question about the comparison between the Chevy body and the Buick Special "A" body.

I take Matt's point, but it seems odd to apply it to this car which has a total of ... two accessories? Apart from the curb feelers and the hideous fender guides, what else do you see? As Hudsy says, this seems more an indication of white wall anxiety than a tendency to over accessorize. Seems like a very nice car from the photos, but grossly overpriced in my opinion.

Just the perspective in the photo. The same reason that the front tire is much "bigger" than the rear. PS [edit]: Does anyone know where the photo of the President is taken? Some kind of museum where folks are standing in front of a painting of the Golden Gate Bridge? Just curious.