Bloo

I mentioned datasheets. They are online for several brands of coolant. They are usually several clicks deep for each product as if they meant to waste your time. Sometimes foaming is mentioned, sometimes it isn't. Some brands have really crappy incomplete datasheets. Some, like Prestone have good datasheets for their truck and industrial products, but any product intended for a car just has a bunch of useless marketing babble. Then there is Valvoline/Zerex. Their datasheets are largely complete and useful, all the way down to their cheapest product. About that ASTM test for foaming. It is ASTM D1881-17. I looked it up. It turns out they would like to sell you a PDF of it for $48. I did find a copy online somewhere. It references a bunch of other ASTM standards, all of which have PDFs online for sale for similar amounts. That is a non-starter. In threads about coolant, usually doubt is raised about the ability of some formulas to protect the metals used in older cars. It turns out there is an ASTM test for that too. It is ASTM D2570-16 Like the foaming test it references a plethora of other ASTM standards that could make you poor in a day over some PDFs. In the better datasheets though, the results of these tests are given, and you can compare them. How to interpret them is a little tougher. The top four scores of everything I looked at included 3 Valvoline/Zerex products and one Shell product. But how do we interpret the scores? If it passes ASTM D1881 does that mean the foaming is negligible and I am splitting hairs by comparing scores? I don't know. A passing score is 150ml of foam and a 5 second break time. Without further ado, here are the top four. #1. Shellzone Multi-Vehicle ELC. 30ml foam. Less than 1 second break. Yellow in color. I literally could not find this to buy in gallons, even online. The ASTM D2570 corrosion test was listed in the datasheet as one of the standards that it meets, but no further information was given about how it did in the test. #2. Valvoline/Zerex G-30. 35ml foam, 1 second break. Purple in color. (I did not pick this one). Why did I not pick this? While available locally, it was not in stock in any quantity. I wanted something common if possible that I could just buy far from home if I needed more. Also, it is only available premixed and that drives up the cost. Thirdly, it did not do as well as some others on the corrosion test for copper. In ASTM D2570, the corrosion test, they use "coupons" of the various metals used in engines and circulate hot coolant over them. The limit for copper is 20mg of metal loss. This scored 16.4mg. The limit for brass is 20mg. This scored 4.9. The scores for all other metals in the test were very low. So, how bad is 16.4? Is any passsing score negligible loss? I don't know. I do know some of the others scored better. #3 Valvoline/Zerex G-40. 40ml foam, 1 second break. Pink in color. (I did not choose this either). Why not this one? It's ASTM D2570 corrosion test results on solder. The limit was 60mg for solder, this scored 24mg. Is that bad or am I splitting hairs? I don't know The loss on all other metals was vanishingly small. There was more of this on the shelf locally but still not a lot. #4 Valvoline/Zerex G-05. 35ml foam, 2.1 second break. Pale yellow in color. I think we have a winner. This looked like a good place to start. Metal loss was vanishingly small for all metals. It is available in concentrate, and is in stock in quantity at both Oreilly and Autozone. It has a 2.1 second break though. If you think about it, if you are constantly making more foam, that might be twice as much foam as the second place Valvoline/Zerex G-20 because the volume is the same (35ml) and the bubbles take a little more than twice as long to pop (2.1 seconds vs 1 second). If anyone wants to see datasheets, they can be accessed from the pages below. Direct linking the PDFs proved impractical. Scroll down. https://solutions.shell.com/us/products/ShellZone_Multi-Vehicle_AntifreezeCoolant__228C8524 https://www.valvoline.com/en/zerex-G30-antifreeze-coolant/ https://www.valvoline.com/en/zerex-g-40/ https://www.valvoline.com/en/g-05-antifreeze-coolant/ Hoo boy... I didnt mean it to be this long... more coming....

Late last year as I was getting ready to head to Wisconsin in the 1936 Pontiac, I was going through the lubrication chart, making sure everything was getting greased and oiled. I decided to change the coolant. It was getting almost 3 years old, a bit longer than I usually leave it. Unlike the rest of my cars, this had the old fashioned green coolant in it, mainly because even though I had changed it before I never had the opportunity to rinse it out completely. Like a lot of other prewar cars, the Pontiac has an "open" system, meaning the coolant is not under pressure. It also has a packing nut on the water pump for a seal. Systems like this are known for having a foaming problem when using the typical ethylene glycol coolant instead of water. The foam goes out the overflow tube, and then the engine runs low on coolant and boils over. There are several old threads about it. Some forum members, like @edinmass ,@Grimy and others have figured out additives to control corrosion when using plain water that work fine in the climates they live in. That won't work for me. The climate here can have sudden unexpected hard frosts, and broken engine blocks were common in the old days when people were caught off gaurd by a sudden cold snap. I need antifreeze for coolant. I had no foaming problem though. I figured I was probably getting away with it because the Pontiac has a cross flow radiator(!). Unlike most prewar cars, any foam would have to pass through the core before it could get near the overflow tube. Ignorance is bliss I guess. So I went ahead and rinsed the whole system out with distilled water and changed the coolant. In the interest of making no radical changes before a trip I decided to stick with the old fashioned green coolant. I picked some "Oreilly conventional green antifreeze and coolant" which said it was for use in "Ford and Chrysler: 2000 and earlier, GM and all other makes 1995 and earlier", mixed it 50% with distilled water and put it in. On the first drive the temperature shot up suddenly and it boiled over badly in the middle of a bridge about 5 miles from home. It was hotter than hell when I pulled into a convenience store on the other side. I got some food while I waited for it to cool down and then bought a gallon of their horribly overpriced coolant. It was Havoline "conventional antifreeze/coolant" (green) "for older autos and light duty trucks" in 50/50 premix. A gallon wasn't enough. I had to go back and buy a second one. I had a new problem and the Flathead Reunion was looming. This car had been working fine for literally years. Bah! Over the next few days I tried all sorts of things. I checked it for combustion gas in the radiator like you would get with a blown head gasket. It passed. I retorqued the head anyway. I checked the packing nut on the water pump and gave it a squirt of water pump grease. It was fine. These things had already been done, but I went over them again anyhow. A car that is leaking combustion gas into the radiator, or sucking air through the packing nut will have an uncontrollable foaming problem. With those things out of the way I was staring to seriously suspect the coolant. I had to check it for a bubble though. I got it warm pointed uphill and observed the coolant flowing. I bought more Havoline "conventional antifreeze/coolant" (green) "for older autos and light duty trucks", this time concentrate, and mixed it 50-50 myself with distilled water. The next day I threw 4 gallons of this home-mixed Havoline coolant in the floorboard and headed about 60 miles upriver. There is a big hill on that highway. I kept pulling over a lot and checking the level. Usually fine, sometimes it lost a little but not much. At one point I pulled over at a walmart and it pushed out about a quart. sometimes it didn't need anything. Then later on the way back it suddenly pushed out a gallon and boiled. There really isn't anything to blame at this point but the coolant. I started searching for anti-foaming additives. Since apparently this is a non-problem in modern pressurized systems, none existed. I eventually found a Shell Rotella coolant that advertised it had a "robust anti-foaming additive" or something like that. It was discontinued or rebranded and none was available. That lead eventually to another Shell coolant that had a reference to an ASTM test for foaming that it passed. There is no Shell bulk plant locally to ask. The only outlet online that had any was selling it in bulk. You had to buy 200 gallons or something like that. That led to reading datasheets for antifreeze. There are not just two or three formulas anymore. There are probably at least 20. No silicates, no Phosphates, Low this, high that, silicates but no phosphates, HOAT, OAT, IAT, 2-EHA, AMAM, include this, delete that, coolants meant to have their additives replenished periodically, coolants that are not meant to have anything added, and so on. Different additives or the lack of them are needed to satisfy warranty requirements on different brands of engines. This doesn't just include cars by the way. Also over-the-road trucks, compressors, generators, heavy equipment, the list goes on. It is almost as if you can choose your coolant ingredients a la carte. Worse the color means *literally nothing* today. Green or pink could be almost anything. There are efforts underway to have a color standard, but right now warranty accepted coolant for one engine could be purple in one brand, yellow in another, and pink in yet another. Also some formulas can be bought in multiple colors from the same source. It's dizzying.

I am extremely skeptical of any compression gauge that doesn't screw in, or that doesn't hold pressure. Compression gauges are limited in the in the information they convey, and too often more information gets inferred than is actually there. Nevertheless, it certainly does sound like valve trouble from your description. How much has this car been driven in recent times? Quite a bit or could it still be awakening? 1). At least pull a side cover and verify that you do NOT have a valve too tight on the suspect cylinder. Do it before you drive more. A tight valve will burn. If you have put quite a few miles on in recent times, then go ahead and adjust them all. If not, adjust any that are too tight and leave the others alone unless they are a ridiculous amount loose. Revisit the valve adjustment after you have driven it more. 2) A proper leakdown test could tell you what is causing the trouble for sure, but there's a 99 percent chance it is a burned valve if it cannot be fixed by valve adjustment. 3) I wouldn't completely rule out head gasket trouble, considering it was loose. That doesn't matter too much because to fix a burned valve you have to pull the head. 4) You can replace one burned valve and lap it in if the rest of the engine is solid and the valve seat is still intact. I would lap all of them if I was in there. They would have done all of them back in the day. Of course if you know the engine is tired, maybe it is best to rebuild the whole thing. I wouldn't be in a hurry to condemn it though. Engine overhauls are expensive, and perhaps more importantly on a older car they are long and drawn out. Do you want to spend 2022 rebuilding an engine or driving the car?

I'll put it up against the Roadmaster IF he ever gets the gears in it 🤣. I can't help but think of a story I heard Pete Lovely tell. Pete was a Formula 1 driver for Lotus in the 1960s. He was talking about his very first sports car race, around 1949 at the old Bremerton Raceway in Washington State. Pete entered a Renault 4CV, and came in so far behind there was some question about how many times he had been lapped. When he went to get the final results, the race marshals were arguing with each other because they couldn't believe anything was that slow.

A: 33uf Tantalum (microfarad, not millifarad, millifarad would be huge), 16v working voltage. 16v is the most it can take, and since its a tanatlum it probably cant take that. They used to run them at 80 percent of rating like you might with some other kind of capacitor. they didn't hold up. If you replace, always go higher on the working voltage. Dont believe any polarity marks, especially on the board. Also especially don't believe the stripe. If you can find a (+) on the cap itself you can believe it. Otherwise read the datasheet. A stripe like that would mean negative on any other type of polarized cap newer than 1975 or so, and most of them long before that. Not tantalums though. That's believable, but I really have no idea. I'm from the vacuum tube era LOL. I do seem to recall that the first generation Ford airbag systems fired the airbag with a couple of big electrolytic capacitors. Yes. Blurry, but looks literally wound with tiny magnet wire, if so then its an inductor or coil. Whenever the color bands make no sense, it's probably a choke or capacitor. If you lift a lead and measure it with an ohmmeter, a capacitor will be open circuit, and a choke will be nearly a dead short. It could also be an extremely low ohms resistor with 3 significant digits and gold as the multiplier 90.9 ohms. That would be a precision rating though, so I doubt it's the answer. If it were there should be a tolerance mark. I don't know. Also if that is orange and not magnet wire, it isn't necessarily a choke. Probably bypassing(?). Keeping a stable power source for the chip, and keeping any noise the chip makes from feeding back into other stuff connected to the same power supply. That is a wild ass guess. Beats me. I thought b was a choke initially because I thought the "orange" was magnet wire. Too blurry. It's probably not a choke. I are noise suppression for sure. Probably capacitors. There could be some diodes in that mess or resistors too. Any that do exactly the same thing, like go from pins to ground, are probably all the same component. The others are a crapshoot. I don't know. Some of that looked brownish in the pics. Brown/tan ones are most likely capacitors. Not really. It could be part of some circuit like that, but the frequency determining part would be a crystal or a ceramic resonator of some sort I would think. It is unlikely to be stable enough otherwise. No. The three you will run into today are pF, nF, and uF. Picofarads (pF), were also known in the past as uuf, mmf, micromicrofarads or "mickey mikes". Nanofarads (nF) are arrived at by moving the decimal 3 places left. Almost never used in the US until fairly recent times. The Europeans used it for ages though. Microfarads (uf) are arrived at by moving the decimal point another 3 places left, or a total of 6 places from picofarads. The "u" is the Greek letter mu when it is available, otherwise use a u. Also known as mf, mfd, MF, MFD in the past. Of interest in that list is mf or MF, which is REALLY millifarads or megafarads or something, so technically wrong. Only microfarads and picofarads were used in electronic service back then so nobody cared. You wont run into that unless you start working on older things than what is in your post. 220,000pf >> move 6 places left >> 0.22uf Little if any standardization on that years ago. There may be now, but if so I don't know about it. I imagine what you have will be some mutation of the resistor color code in either microhenries or millihenries. Most likely picofarads if they are capacitors, and probably low values. It's not ringing any bells. I sort of doubt that is really it, but such things have been done in electronic gear in the past. Not much, but it's not unknown. ANYTHING using a 5 volt supply on chips needs a voltage regulator, it is just never done any other way, and that goes x1000 in a car. A 12v car is 12.6 volts fully charged and off, less if discharged, 14.7-ish running and may have electrical noise (spikes) in some cases 100-200 volts. A computer-era car is cleaner but the point stands. If you use resistors, the dropped voltage will be proportional to the system voltage. You can't have that when logic chips are trying to figure out the difference between 0v and 5v every clock cycle, never mind that they are sensitive to overvoltage and might burn out. If there is no 5 volt regulator chip. Read about zener diode shunt regulators. In the simplest form, there is a series resistor, and then a 5v zener diode to ground. The zener draws whatever is needed to keep the line at 5 volts. It is inefficient and usually runs hot and so does the series resistor. When the equipment draws more current, the zener draws less. Another way is to use a power transistor, and just use the zener to control is. Thats basically the same thing as the regulator chip, but built from discrete parts. I don't recognize it.

The presence of the dye is the smoking gun and is a big deal. I wouldn't be too upset about a little milky stuff in the breather as long as the oil looks good. That is pretty common. There's water in the air, and also water as a by-product of combustion that can get past the rings.

Whew. At some point you are gonna need sharper pics than that, but to begin... A: A polarized capacitor, probably a tantalum due to it's color. The markings will tell the rest of the story, and will be needed, in detail. Also, note the band at the end and the plus next to it. This is wrong by today's standards, and the new part MUST go in the right way. Otherwise it might explode or catch fire or something. Tantalums long ago (sometimes even recently) may be labeled in a way that we would consider backwards. Do not leave this detail to chance if replacing the part. Both the datasheet for the new part and the old one must be consulted to make sure it goes on the right way. B: Those appear(?) to be chokes and might be nigh impossible to identify. A good one might be measurable if it was off of the board. Unlikely to be bad. C, D : Resistors or capacitors. Probably resistors. Need better pic. To replace you would need the ohms (if resistor) or capaciatance in picofarads (if capacitor). Also since these are "surface mount" aka "SMD" components, you need the size class. That is just a physical measurement you can measure with a caliper. E: A capacitor, possibly a poly capacitor, but I can't really discern it's shape from that pic. Maybe ceramic. Now it is time to have a conversation about modern part markings. As my experience tends to be mostly with far older equipment, I'm a little slow with this part. "224" in this case is probably two significant digits and a multiplier. Think of the multiplier as the number of zeroes. In this case 220,000 pF (picofarads). A cap with that much capacitance is probably sold in the catalog in uF(microfarads) rather than pF. Move the decimal 6 spaces left for uF. This is a 0.22uF capacitor. YKA could be a lot of things. Maybe a date code, maybe more useful information. You will need to know the working voltage rating of any capacitor you might intend to replace. That isn't always easy, and may require research, but it is necessary. You can go higher with a new part but never lower on the working voltage. The tall V might be Vishay, a capacitor manufacturer. F: Probably carbon film resistors. Maybe chokes. Maybe even capacitors but probably not. A view from the side and an accurate interpretation of the color bands is necessary. If the colors don't make sense in either direction as a resistors, probably chokes. You must pay attention to wattage in resistors. You can go higher but not lower. When replacing with similar old fashioned parts, physical size is a huge clue and often good enough. G: Semiconductorrs of some sort. Probably bipolar transistors or maybe FETs. Could even be a two-diode pack or something. Markings are everything here. H: If thats black , I'd say its a resistor. Two significant digits and then a multiplier, like the capacitor. 333 means 33,000 Ohms. Probably catalogued in Kiloohms. Move the decimal 3 places left. 33Kohm, or 33k in a catalog. If you see an "R" in the middle on one, like 3R3, it is a decimal point, and there's no multiplier. 3R3=3.3ohms. I think this convention of using R for a decimal is also used on capacitors. I: A bunch of interference suppression parts on a connector (my guess). Probably capacitors(?). How sure are you there are no marks? If you don't have a loupe, you better get one. There could be other components mixed in that mess. The values might not be highly critical, but cant be just random. Worst case you have to test them. Ones to test for value would probably have to come off a spare scrap board. J: A mounting pad for a chip that is not present. Probably an option that was not used in this version. If there is no damage or evidence that someone REMOVED a chip, it is best ignored. K: I have no idea. Maybe the traces are jumpers that can be cut to calibrate or configure something? best left alone I think. L: That's not how 5 volts is achieved on any board full of chips. There is a regulator. Thats probably it to the right. Get the first line of numbers (maybe LM-somethingorother) and google it. Maybe it's a 5 volt regulator. The other things don't seem to have enough bands to be resistors. They're probably chokes for interference suppression. https://www.wikihow.com/Read-a-Capacitor https://www.digikey.com/en/resources/conversion-calculators/conversion-calculator-smd-resistor-code https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/electronic_components/capacitors/capacitor-codes-markings.php https://www.te.com/usa-en/products/passive-components/resistors/intersection/resistor-color-codes.html

I suggest you take time to identify what plastic your grille is made of before you attempt anything. If it is ABS, it may be possible to solvent-weld it to a very high standard. The solvent for ABS is MEK, and it is getting a little hard to procure. ABS can also be welded with ABS pipe cement from the store, but you may want to consider making your own for many reasons. I have done a little of this. If it's ABS, post good pictures and I may have some advice. You can also find many other postings elsewhere on the web by people who have more experience with it than I do. There is a high rate of success with this particular plastic if you approach it carefully. If it is some kind of a poly plastic, you may need to be doing what richard m suggested. There is also a product called q-bond you might want to check into, and see if it fits your needs.

I am afraid you might not get very good information. Sometimes electronics manufacturers go out of their way to obfuscate what parts they are using and/or what the source was. Unfortunately, that is highly likely to be the case on some politically or legally contentious thing like an airbag. Not only would they not want you to know what the components were, they would not want you working on it. If you can post good pictures of the components you need to identify, we can try. I have a bit of electronics experience, as do others in here. With good pictures, you might also find the EEVblog forums useful. https://www.eevblog.com/forum/

I have 4.89 (Pontiac mountain gears) changing to 3.82.

I found myself a little buried when I got home, and that is why I am just getting around to posting all this stuff from late 2021. That glass is on the list to get replaced, and I already have a new gasket, but I am 6'3" and it doesn't obstruct anything. Next thing to tackle I guess will be to pull the head and look at the bores. The high speed gears just need to be put together. It is still winter here and the car is put away. I Imagine I will do the gears first, because the shop manual is pretty picky about how they are to be broken in, and I would like to get it overwith.

Hopefully some of the following helps identify any loose transmissions. Buick, showing the stout torque ball used on Buicks because the torque tube acts a fore-aft suspension location member. (This is a picture posted by @70sWagoneers in another thread). Oldsmobile, showing the short tailshaft and u-joint flange for an open driveline. (This is a picture @Dandy Dave posted an another thread): Late 1935, 1936 Pontiac. Oddly I don't have good pictures. Here is the side view of my 1936 from earlier in the thread showing the distinctly Chevrolet-like rear housing. Speedometer drives from below the shaft. But I don't have one from the rear with the u-joint installed. The 1936 rear housing is 1293575 (Late 1935 is probably 1299299, not sure what the difference is. Possibly the position of the transmission mount boss). 1937 open driveline Pontiac with the long tailshaft. The long part of the tailshaft is removable, leaving a small rear housing on the transmission. The only pictures I could find had the rear part of the tailshaft removed. Look at how long it is! (These are pictures @m.navarro posted in an old thread): And another pic I found online showing what you see at the back when the tailshaft is off but the rear housing is still on (transmission on the right):

All done, and my new (right before the Wisconsin trip) floor mat finally back in. It's a cut down unpunched 1937 Buick 80 mat. Not a bad fit. Not perfect but not bad, and can probably be made a little better with slight modifications to the padding. That bit at the back that doesn't quite lay down is under the seat. With the car back together I headed back out on the road to test the generator and visited some little towns around here, and that wrapped it up 2021. I tacked that on the end of the WIsconsin thread here. https://forums.aaca.org/topic/368054-road-trip-pontiac-flathead-reunion/page/3/#comment-2333762 For reference, I thought I would post some the differences that allowed these transmissions to fit various GM makes. Thanks to @Dandy Dave, @NailheadBob, @Kornkurt and @37_Roadmaster_Cwho provided part numbers that made this possible. This is mostly about 1936-38, and is by no means exhaustive. I believe transmissions with the odd short monkey motion shifter as seen in this thread probably originated at Oldsmobile, maybe even before 1930. By the mid 30s, they were coming primarily if not entirely from Buick's Flint plant, or at least reading about the strike at Chevrolet's Toledo plant would lead you to believe that. Here is a look at the differences between versions at the back, in the interest of helping ID these transmissions easily. Everything at the back is different on the different makes, we know they had to do that to get them in the different cars. This chart looks mainly at the output shaft because it is the only part at the back that reaches inside the transmission. Were they able to use the same output shaft on different versions? Differences at the back of the transmission: Make Year Driveline Speedo Gear U-Joint Type Output Shaft --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Buick 40 1934-36 Buick Torque Tube (?) Buick Enclosed 1287295 Buick 40 1937-38 Buick Torque Tube Above Shaft Buick Enclosed 1298002 Buick 50 1934-35 Buick Torque Tube (?) Buick Enclosed 1399606 Oldsmobile 1934-38(?) Open, Short Tailshaft Above Shaft Open (?) Pontiac 1935* Chev. Torque Tube Below Shaft Chev. Enclosed** 1287295 Pontiac 1936 Chev. Torque Tube Below Shaft Chev. Enclosed 1287295 Pontiac 1937 Open, Long Tailshaft Above Shaft(?) Open 1300025 *Late 1935 ONLY **Rear housing is 1935 only, transmission mount location probably differs from 1936 As it turns out, Yes. The 1934-36 Buick output shaft was also used on the enclosed driveline Pontiacs of late 1935 and 1936. This means they could have produced the Pontiac transmissions, the back half of them anyway, by just using different external parts. I don't know if they did, but they could have. And now the front. Were any of the input shafts the same across makes? Make Year Front Bearing Cover Trans Case Input Shaft/Gear ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Buick 40 1934-35* (none listed) 1285520 lhd 1286317 rhd 1282454 Buick 40 1935 late 1289436** 1294297 lhd 1395653 rhd 1282454 Buick 40 1936 1289436 1293153 1282454 Buick 40 1937 1289436 1293153 1298000 Buick 40 1938 (none listed) 1305765 1394770*** Buick 50 1934-35 1280425 lhd 1283200 rhd 1282454 Oldsmobile 1934-36 (uses bellhousing) (?) 1284271 Oldsmobile 1937-38**** (uses bellhousing) (?) 1298738 Oldsmobile 1938**** (uses bellhousing) (?) 1300487 Pontiac 1935***** 1293296 1395781 1293298 Pontiac 1936 1293296 1399802 1293298 Pontiac 1937 (uses bellhousing) 1293596 1298738 *early 1935 only **none listed early 1935 *** mentions included oil seal ****with footnotes (probably early and late 1938?) *****late 1935 only As it turns out, almost none. The 37 Pontiac uses the same input shaft as the 37-38 Oldsmobile. Both use their respective bellhousings as the front bearing cover. Of course none of this is really conclusive evidence. Part numbers for the same part are not always the same between divisions, but fairly often they are. Versions that use the bellhousing as the front bearing cover would have no stud holes at the front bearing, so that's an expected difference. EDIT: One more difference, thanks to @pont35cpe , I now know that the Buick input shaft has a 1-1/4" spline. I measured another 36 Pontiac transmission, and the input shaft has a 1-1/8" spline. The clutch pilot on the Pontiac is about 0.590", but that may not be an exact measurement. Now here are numbers for the parts that were actually bad in my transmission... Cushion Spring Make Year Group qty/car Name in Parts Book Part Number ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Buick 40* 1934-37 4.383 1 Used as Cushion Ring 1286010 Oldsmobile 1933-38 4.383 1 Retainer, Synchronizing Cushion 1286010 Pontiac 1935-37** 4.383 1 Cushion Spring 553715 Synnchronizer Detent Spring Make Year Group qty/car Name in Parts Book Part Number ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Buick 40* 1934-38 4.413 3 Spring, Synchronizing Detention 1300501 Oldsmobile 1934-38 4.413 3 Spring, Synchronizer Detention 1300501 Pontiac 1935-37** 4.400 3 Spring, Synchronizer Detent 1300501 *also Buick 50 1934-35 **late 1935 only

I don't believe this is the right piece. I believe this Dorman piece is for a double flare. We won't know for sure until we see a picture of what @EmTee has, but believe it is 99.9% established that the fittings Buick used are Threaded Sleeve based on @EmTee 's post quoted below as well as the verbage used in the Buick parts manual. Still at issue, as I understand it, are 2 things. 1) The location and size of the orifice and 2) Whether the missing fitting is a standard Threaded Sleeve female with tapered (NPT) pipe thread at the opposite end, and matching tapered (NPT) pipe threads in the head, and if so, how that was compatible with the screen. The screen appears to have a sealing lip that a tapered (NPT) fitting would never reach, because it would tighten and seal in the threads in the head before it bottomed on the screen flange. Threaded sleeve fittings may sometimes be referred to as "Double Compression" fittings or "Dole Fittings". Here are some old threads.

That leaves the shifter. I had no intention of tackling this. It was all sloppy but not really causing any trouble. The "fulcrums" are what supposedly wear out, but I had this apart once before in this thread. I was installing a new floor mat just before the WIsconsin trip. I had already seen all my parts back when I posted that thread, and knew they were all shot. I bought this NORS kit on Ebay. All the Pontiacs on that list don't even use the same family of transmissions. Some are Chevrolet Master based, and are completely unrelated. The manufacturer apparently had no idea what these parts fit. Still, it looked like the right stuff, and looked much better after a dunk in evaporust, they look pretty nice. The "fulcrums" (the big round parts) are usually what is shot. Mine were so shot the shifter had started to wear through the springs (at the bottom of the picture above) too. This is what happens to fulcrums: Now here is the problem, the pin in the shifter runs in "hole" formed by the two half moons in the edge. The pin in the shifter is too big. It will never fit in the transmission lid like this. There are 3 major differences here, and 2 of them do matter. First, The hole is the wrong size. Second, the pin on the shifter is not only too big in diameter for these fulcrums, it is also too short. It barely catches the hole. Thirdly, the fulcrums are deeper. The extra depth doesn't matter though, because there would be enough room if the pin fit the hole. I ground out the "hole" until it fit the pin, but then the pin was still too short. I then went into blacksmith mode and hammered them a bit to force more of an oval shape (blue arrows, first picture). That caused the corners (red circles first picture) to lift. Since I had to pound them down a little I decided to keep going and make them touch the square area on the shift lever (see one picture back). I doubt these were ever meant to touch, but it takes strain off of the pin and the "hole" it runs in, so why not? All this pounding brought the holes in the side (blue arrows second picture) into an oval shape. I also had to keep tapping to keep the surface (yellow arrows second picture) flat. I had to flat file them a little to get them back perfectly flat. At this point the pin fit the fulcrums nicely, the ends of the corners were touching to take the strain off of the pin, but the end caps (purple second picture) needed to fit in the holes (blue arrows second pic). I had to grind the holes that had become oval round again with a dremel tool. The result was excellent with the shifter, so I guess I don't regret buying these parts, but for all the time it took, I probably could have welded and ground on my old fulcrums enough to fix them. I still would have needed the springs (bottom of the pic above) because the old ones were worn about halfway through. One thing that seemed ambiguous the last time I had the shifter apart was which way the tails of those springs go, up or down (bottom of the pic above). In that old thread I linked above @DonMicheletti said "At the end of the day. the stick should be spring loaded toward the second / third position". That solves the mystery. One tail goes up and one tail goes down. It has to be that way now that there is not a half inch of slop in everything. That narrows it down to two possibilities, and only one of the two possibilities spring loads it toward second / third. Back together it goes! More to come.....

Before the fork could go in though, there was another little detour. There is a clutch boot. It was still there, but in shreds and covered in so much sludge you couldn't really tell what it looked like. After several runs through a parts washer in a small parts cage it was sort of clean. The hole it goes in: That green is not the original engine color, it is a reflection of a green tarp on the ground! I figured If I did not do something about the boot, the remaining shreds would fall off and I wouldn't have a pattern. I've seen speculation that these sewn up boots were made of canvas, but not this one. This picture tells the story. It is artificial leather of some kind in brown, probably Fabrikoid or similar and probably made of nitrocellulose. I have commented in the past about how completely unavailable this stuff is. It is quite a rabbit hole to go down on the internet. In the UK they called it Rexine, and they were probably the last to make any. Vinyl turns rock hard in the presence of oil, so that was straight out. I had a piece of brown leather, so I decided to use that. With the seams ripped and the spring removed, it looked like this: Yeah, not much left. Here is the first pattern making attempt. The first attempt was intentionally asymetrical because it looked like the original might have been. The way the fork exits the hole in the bellhousing is slightly asymetrical. That didn't work as well as expected. I now think the original was symmetrical, and all subsequent attempts were symmetrical. Paper is a horrible pattern material for this. On this car, the boot is scrunched at rest, and stretches to almost it's open shape. It can never be quite tight because the clutch adjustment will change over time with clutch wear. Paper patterns. Just no. It doesn't scrunch well. Subsequent attempts at a pattern were in very lightweight canvas. All the pictures of that are lost. There were at least 6 more tries at a pattern before I had something that fit the car. Then that was transferred back to paper to check the symmetry of the pattern, and cut the leather. This does have an extra 1/8" on the tabs just in case. Here you can see the spring tied together with a twistie tie. Getting the side tabs tight at the back is tough, but very important to get it to fit right. The spring fights even when tied up. On the original there were only 2 seams. the separate one is the little tab at the far left above. The rest of the boot was done in one run originally. It is a bit of a pain to sew around the spring with a typical industrial sewing machine. I don't think it is possible to do it in one run. At some point you have to go over the spring. Judging by the stitch type on the original boot, I am convinced they did this on a bag closer rather than a normal industrial sewing machine. That might have been easier, but I still can't imagine how they got over the wire to do it in a single run without stopping the thread, but they did. I did the seam at the left in the picture below separately. Fits OK. Here it is scrunched at rest. I wasn't planning to do anything to the clutch linkage right now, as it is easily accessed later and was still taking grease ok, but at some point it fell apart so I took it off and cleaned it out completely and regreased it. It looks like this. The piece that bolts directly to the bellhousing is not in this picture below, but it is in the picture above if you look closely. The holes at the left below bolt to the frame. This thing has a ball socket in each end. The one at the left (frame) end is held together with a spring wire clip, and the one at the right just floats. I probably would have had to take this off anyway to get the fork connected to the linkage. That spring and washer stuff in the picture below makes the flexible connection of the fork to the linkage at the big hole in the picture above. Not shown with the springs and washers is a pin that slides in the second hole and attaches to the clutch return spring. Ready for the transmission to go back in. The stepped bolt for the clutch pivot is tight from both the inside and the outside. You can see the carbon throwout bearing in place, and even the little spring clips that hold the throwout bearing to the fork. The bellhousing lower pan is back on. Most of the clutch linkage is too. Still not in place is a piece of clutch linkage at the far right two pictures back, and the springs and washers that attach it to the fork. And back in it goes. The u-joint bolts back together and the torque tube bolts back up. There is shimming to do on the torque ball, but I won't go into that here. It is identical to a Chevrolet torque ball and there are various howtos online. There is also a little crossmember with a rear mount that bolts back in at this point. Now is time to put the bottom plug in and fill the transmission with oil. I did it through the shifter hole because it's easy. You also have to put some oil in through the speedometer gear hole for the u-joint. I did that and put the speedometer gear back in and hooked the cable up. Chevrolet style u-joints need to be lubricated. In normal use enough oil will get back there to take care of it, but on an initial run after a rebuild like this, or on a car that has not been driven in years, the universal joint can destroy itself in a very short distance if you do not put oil in there! Don't forget. I suggest using a synchromesh friendly gear oil in a synchromesh transmission. There are quite a few options now. I am using Redline 75W140NS synthetic in this car. Note the NS. The version of this oil without the NS in the name is not synchromesh friendly. More to come.....

Checking and re-tightening the head bolts was part of a tune up in those days. Re-torquing too after torque wrenches came along....

That sounds like a normal "threaded sleeve" fitting. What size is the tubing? You would need a female threaded sleeve fitting, maybe with an orifice added? Any currently available ones, and most in the old days for that matter, go to pipe thread. Is that pipe thread in the head? What size?

What I want to see is what the TIP of this fitting looks like (green). And what the seat in the bottom of this looks like (red arrow).

On a 1936 Pontiac, the pilot bushing in the back of the crankshaft is not a bushing, it is a Hyatt bearing! I guess this is a bit early for Oilite Bronze, although I believe Pontiac had probably already been using it in water pumps. Since you can't get to it without either pulling the engine out or the transmission and clutch out, they didn't even bother mentioning it in the lubrication chart. I knew it was there though, and that it probably had not been greased since 1936. Months or maybe years ago I bought a NOS bearing and dust cover. I had intentions of pulling the transmission out just to relubricate this bearing, or replace it if it was bad. I definitely intended to do it before the Wisconsin trip but ran out of time. I'm glad now because I would have probably stuck the transmission back in not knowing the detent springs were about to fall apart. During this teardown, I decided to go ahead and do it. That meant taking the clutch out. I took the bottom pan off of the bellhousing, and disconnected one end of the clutch linkage. The linkage sits on the reinforced area. Then the fork and throw out bearing has to come out. Due to the tight clearance, this is a bit fiddly to disassemble. The fork must be partially unscrewed from the inside of the bellhousing, then the step bolt can be partly unscrewed from the outside, more unscrewing from the inside, etc. Throwout bearing: And then the clutch pressure plate can come out. Mine had a big yellow paint mark on it that matched a mark on the flywheel. That probably means the two were balanced together, and should be reassembled in the same orientation. Watch for it. Buick 40s as I understand it had a "waffle clutch" pressure plate that does not age well and is often replaced with one intended for a much newer Jeep. I don't know what Oldsmobile did. This Pontiac unit is similar to Chevrolet (I think), and is notorious for needing a special jig to set It's many adjustments properly. Out of adjustment can cause chattering. Since it looked completely unmolested, and lacking a jig, I left it as-is. Since a bunch of my pictures are still missing, here is a stand in from the Internet. Here is the clutch disc. It looks pretty good. It isn't contaminated with oil. It is thick enough according to the shop manual. This is a pretty modern looking sprung hub clutch disc, except for the fact that that the lining does not have radial cuts across the surface. They probably had not got around to doing that yet in 1936. The disc appears probably original as far as I can tell, but the lining on it may not be. This is a 10 inch clutch with a 2 inch lining. The machined surface on the pressure plate, however, does not quite have 2 inches. It falls a few thousandths short on the inner diameter, and this disc was growing a tiny sharp ridge along the inner diameter of the lining. That could conceivably cause a chattering problem. If you were picking a lining, a 10 inch lining with slightly less than 2" of material would be a better choice. I cut the ridge off, and cut a slight bevel to slow or prevent formation of another ridge. If this lining is really from the 1930s it is asbestos, You would be well advised to not use any method that would release small particles into the air. With the clutch out of the way, I could finally get at the pilot bearing. To my amazement, the bearing still had lubrication. At this point, I still couldn't find the NOS bearing and dust cover I had bought but I forged ahead anyway. After a couple of false starts with my own tools and some rented pullers from the auto parts store, I bought a tiny puller from Harbor Freight meant for pulling pilot bushings. It worked. Not only did it work, it got both the bearing and dust cover out with no damage. Here they are, with the input shaft of the transmission photobombing over at the left. I cleaned it up extensively, greased it with some good synthetic grease (Redline CV-2), put it back in and called it good for another 85 years. In reality, this post is a bit out of chronological order, in the interest of keeping all the transmission overhaul stuff together. In reality I delayed final assembly of the transmission until this part was done, so I could use the input shaft as a clutch alignment tool. I do believe this most likely takes a tool that is the same as one of the common modern ones, but it didn't match any of the ones floating around in my toolbox, so doing this was probably just as quick as identifying it, waiting for one to come in the mail. etc. The there was the drudgery of cleaning up the bellhousing and the surrounding area. Here it looks pretty good. It doesn't really show up in the picture but there is more battleship gray paint on it. The cover that goes over the hole was also battleship gray. The green spots seem pretty obvious later additions, definitely not original. I could not find any trace of paint up on top of the bellhousing or up the back of the engine block, only surface rust. If the engine was indeed green originally, they must have made the transition from gray to green in the middle of the bellhousing. That's just plain weird. Why would you do that? With the pilot bearing re-installed, I put the clutch disc back in. Don't get it backwards. On a lot of rear wheel drive American cars, that means the thick part with the springs goes away from the engine. That may or may not have been the case here. The part that determines which way it has to go in this car is in the very middle of the clutch disc, the part with the spline hole. It is longer on one side than the other, and if I remember correctly that is what determines which way it has to go in. Better yet, you could just take pictures when you are taking it apart. I did that, but I lost them LOL. I put the pressure plate back in, aligned everything with the input shaft, lined up the yellow paint marks I found on the pressure plate and flywheel. and bolted it together. Always bring pressure plate bolts down evenly. If you just tighten one you will bend something. I know most of you know that but I am going to throw it out there anyway. Don't tighten one bolt all the way down. tighten a couple turns, turn the crank most of the way around, tighten a couple turns, turn the crank again, tighten a couple of turns. Keep going around the circle until they are all tight. Now would be time to talk about the throwout bearing. It is carbon. It has an oil cup on it, and the manual suggests very heavy oil. The oil soaks through the carbon to keep it lubricated. Notice that shiny machined polished area at the center of the pressure plate. The oily carbon slides on that. That surface is a separate piece, and it is held in place by the black wire springs. It can be replaced separate from the pressure plate should it become damaged. Here is the carbon "bearing". Note the oil cup. I have seen replacements that have a zerk instead of an oil cup. That doesn't make a lot of sense. I suspect those zerks are really for oil just like the cup. "Oil Guns" for zerk fittings existed for machine shop tools back in the 30s. That must have been what the zerk was for, I guess. How would grease even make it through the carbon? The grooves are wear indicators and this one is in excellent shape. I mentioned the bare input shaft on the transmission earlier. And the fact that most modern setups have a sleeve to support the throwout bearing like this Borg Warner T-5. This is because most more modern throwout bearings are actually bearings. They need to be centered on the pressure plate! They slide in and out on the sleeve. The carbon bearing on the other hand is just a piece of oily carbon sliding around on a polished piece of steel. It doesn't care at all how well it is lined up as long as it doesn't hit anything. I believe the Buick 40 used a real bearing originally, so I imagine it has a support sleeve. No idea about the Oldsmobile. Every now and then you will see a thread where someone wants to put a real bearing in a car that came with carbon. I always wonder how they plan to center it. The hole and cover plate in the top of the bellhousing allows you to put oil in the carbon bearing's oil cup if you have the toeboards of the car out. I had done it once before a long time ago, and it seemed oily, but I wanted to be sure, so I set up a hot plate out in the driveway and soaked it in in hot SAE 50 motor oil for a few hours. I then put a few more drops in the cup, and wiped it down extensively to remove excess oil. I have been cautioned about over-oiling carbon bearings, apparently you can wind up with oil in the clutch. On this car though, there is no sleeve on the transmission, the carbon bearing is just hanging out in the air, and only even touches the pressure plate when you step on the clutch. I don't see how it could be a problem. I'd rather it not ever run out of oil. The clutch fork, unlike most has the pivot ball more or less permanently attached. There were a couple of snap rings in there or spirolox or something. I don't think it was meant to ever be taken apart but it is theoretically possible. I decided the chance of damaging it was too great, so soaked it in solvent, blasted with brake cleaner, etc. several times until I could no longer get any crud out. Then I packed it with synthetic grease. The throwout bearing attaches to the clutch fork with wire spring clips. I don't have any pictures of those. I put some grease on the pivots. Now in theory the fork could go back in, and get bolted in with that weird stepped bolt and 2 lockwashers. The bolt goes in from the outside, the fork has to be started from the inside, then back and forth until the outside can be tightehed, and then the inside gets snugged last.

I usually stay out of Reatta engine control threads because although I have worked on these same engine control systems on other GM cars I am not very familiar with the extra built in diagnostics of the Reatta. I used a scan tool. These guys all know more about Reatta than I do. That said, you don't have codes so... I don't have a good feeling about this. Yes. The ECM does control it though. It isn't that hard to check outside of getting one really long lead on the multimeter. Unplug the ECM and the IAC, check wires for continuity end to end on all 4 wires, check for shorts between the wires (should have no continuity) check all 4 wires to ground (should have no continuity) and check that none of them are hot (both ends are unplugged for the test, so they sure shouldn't be hot). Finding a wiring diagram usually takes longer than checking something like this, and then you know whether it is good or bad and can move ahead. ^^This. Sounds right to me. Amen. The absolute last. It is NEVER the ECM. I made a career out of fixing cars people had already thrown a bunch of parts at. If we leave two or three specific types of engine control systems out of the count, I have seen about 6 legitimately broken ECMs out of hundreds and hundreds of cars. Back in the 1990s, remanufactured ECMs were hot sellers at the parts stores. That must have been quite a racket because 99% of the cores coming back in would have had nothing wrong with them. The ECM shouldn't even be on with the key off. Sure there are a bunch of always hot wires at the ECM, but it is shut down and should be doing nothing. The first thing I would have done if I thought the ECM was awake with the car off would be to unplug the ECM, get out the wiring diagram, and verify that that: 1) All the harness pins that are supposed to be hot 24/7 are hot. 2) Any harness pins that should be hot with the key on are hot with the key on, and especially in this case, that they are off when the key is off. 3) That all the harness pins that are supposed to be grounds are indeed grounded. Don't skip this. Also, everything @Ronnie said.

What? Now I'm confused. The fitting must have been bottomed on something other than the screen, right? I don't see a flare seat there, nor any seat for a threaded sleeve fitting. @MCHinson @37_Roadmaster_C @Marty Roth @Gary W

They just tolerated some leakage in transmissions of this age. There is no front seal for instance. There are other things about the design too that aren't really 100% oil tight. Oil was thick. It did look like they used red paint they may have been using for inspection marks on some of the threads. I decided to slow down the seepage as much as possible. I used thread sealer on threads, a little sealer, probably shellac on critical spots on the gaskets. There were a couple of welch plugs at the back of the transmission plugging holes probably made in the original machining of the shift rail holes. I drenched those in wicking grade Loctite, and let them soak a while. Unfortunately most of my pics of this part have gone missing. I'll probably edit them in later. First the countergear and it's thrust washers have to go down in the bottom of the case, preferably in the same positions and same side up so they don't need to break in a second time. The shaft can not go in yet. Then the input shaft and gear go in. Assemble the third gear synchronizer to it using the captured snap ring. The two keys on the snap ring go in one of the notches in the side of the synchronizer. And then the input shaft goes in the hole in the front from the inside. Then another snap ring, the one that will eventually be trapped between the front cover and the case, goes on from the outside and snaps in the groove in the bearing. Once the input shaft is in position, with the countergear and thrust washers laying in the bottom of the case, the countershaft can go in. I can't help but imagine what a pain this part would be if the countergear was full of needle bearings. I think a version like that exists. Fortunately not this 1936 version. The only thing you need to do is tease the thrust washers up into position to get the shaft started through them. That is a little fiddly but not horrible. The shaft must insert from the back because it is intended to be so tight it seals. That has to involve an interference fit and a slightly different size from front to rear. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to assemble it and still have it tight enough not to leak. Then there is the matter of sealer. Designs like this aren't supposed to need it. Model A Fords are built like this though, and I have heard stories of them needing to be sealed. Since this is down at the bottom of the case, you could conceiveably lose enough fluid to do serious damage. I didn't want to use Loctite, Hylomar, or Indian Head because I feared I could never get it back apart without damage. This is an extrememly tight fit with no sealer in it. Chrysler has a silicone sealer meant specifically to hold back gear oil, and it is extremely effective. The Chrysler dealer was out of it and backordered with no expected ship date. I wound up with a Permatex product that is supposedly equivalent. Normally you should not allow a tube of silicone within 100 feet of any car built before the 80s. I decided to make a rare exception here. With all parts hospital clean, I wiped a TINY amount on the inside of the case bore at the front, and on the shaft instead at the back of the case. Why? At both ends, the excess gets pushed outside the case, not inside. I then cleaned up all the residue on the outside. This is so tight, I doubt there is actually any silicone left in there, but if there was any void that should have filled it. Enough about that. It was likely unnecessary. The countershaft must be driven in with the correct clocking and to the correct depth. You do need to plan for it. Here is what it looked like coming apart. Front: Rear: Have the rear housing ready to test fit as you are tapping the shaft in. Use a brass drift or something else soft that will not mess up a steel shaft. If the angle of the slot or the depth the shaft is driven in to is wrong, the tailhousing wont fit. The tailhousing registers in this bore (green arrow) and then you have to rotate it to engage a tab in the slot (blue) to get the bolts to line up. Don't forget the thickness of the gasket. There is a little slop in the notch to help you with this but not much. If the shaft is not driven in far enough it could break the tab or prevent the gasket from seating right. If the shaft is driven in too far or the angle is wrong, you wont be able to rotate the rear housing to line up the bolt holes. Here is the tab (red), as seen on an Oldsmobile rear housing from the Internet. So that is why you are checking it now even though the housing wont be going on yet. Ideally you would want the tab to drag slightly on outside of the notch so that it will get looser as you tighten the bolts and there is no interference. I have probably talked way too long about this, as it will be obvious while you are disassembling the transmission. On the other hand, if it sat apart for a while it might be easy to forget. Ok so now the input shaft, countergear, and countershaft are in. Now you can put in the reverse idler and thrust washers. Like the others, it would be best to get them back in the same positions and orientation so they don't have to break in a second time. This one doesn't seal, so it just pushes in. There is a hole at the right end end of that shaft in the picture above. Align it to the hole in the case. This is not a bolt (blue), it is a threaded pin that engages the hole. Put some thread sealer or Loctite on the threads. Now the mainshaft needs to go back together. This may be brief due to my lost pictures. A lot of this has already been covered, as it is where the detent springs and wave washer were located. Speaking of pictures, here is this blurry one of the mainshaft again. And a quick recap. That is the spline the u-joint engages at the right, and the journal for the Hyatt bearing at the left. Note there is a ring or stop at the center. Second gear, no longer photobombing, is at the top. It slides on from the right side, and sits just about exactly as far left as you see here. The 2nd gear synchronizer, with the copper "Cushion Spring" installed (pictured below) slides on from the left side. It attaches to second gear with a captured snap ring in exactly the same manner the 3rd gear synchronizer attached to the input shaft. This captured snap ring, invisible due to my blurry picture, has 2 locating keys to engage one notch in the side of the synchronizer, just like 3rd gear. Once snapped in place, the gear and synchronizer assembly is captured on the shaft. The 2 shiny dots in the splines (pictured above) just to the left of the stop are probably where the legs of the synchronizer (pictured below) were sitting. Also of note in the picture above are the spiral grooves to the right of the yellow paint mark. Those interact with the oil deflector on the rear housing to limit the amount of oil going back toward the u-joint housing. The u-joint needs transmission oil to survive, but presumably this prevents it from getting overloaded. And then the synchronizer sleeve and detent springs go on. Here is @Dandy Dave's Oldsmobile manual picture again. That is the second gear synchro at the far right, that we have just attached to the gear and shaft. 4.413 detent springs sit in 3 of the spline grooves and then the synchro sleeve 4.414 slides on, in such a way that the deep notches clear the legs of the 2nd gear synchro. Then 4.417 slides on, all in the orientation shown. That brings me to the next point. This is no substitute for the service manual or the parts book. If you are working on one of these you need it. Also take notes and preferably pictures when you take it apart, and then don't lose them like I did before I got around to posting this. I bring this up because there are parts I have not mentioned. I know there is at least one more hardened steel thrust washer. I believe it goes behind second gear, but I have no picture. I believe it is 4.406 in the @Dandy Dave's Oldsmobile image below: Now the Hyatt bearing can be inserted in the back of the input shaft/gear, and the whole output shaft assembly inserted through the hole in the rear of the case. The tail housing can then be assembled and installed. This is likely different between all 3 makes, and also likely different on later Pontiacs with open drivelines. On this 1936 Pontiac though, the rear bearing goes in , a snap ring holds it in place, and the oil deflector that interacts with the spiral grooves at the back of second gear goes in. This picture from the Internet is Oldsmobile, not Pontiac. I believe the bearing probably goes in the opposite side. The oil deflector looks the same. It snaps in a groove like a snap ring. You can see a notch at the bottom (red arrow) that aligns to a matching key on the oil deflector. That positions the gap on the oil deflector (blue arrow) at the top. Then the rear housing and gasket can go on, rotate to engage the notch in the countershaft as discussed earlier, and bolt on. Use thread sealer or loctitie on the bolts to prevent oil seeping out through the threads. Then the rest of the parts on the back can go on. In the Pontiac's case that is a Chevrolet-style U-joint. The ring at the lower right lays inside, the yoke at the upper right goes on the spline and bolts on with a bolt and a huge special washer. On the 36 Pontiac, leave the small speedometer gear and bullet out for now. You will need to put oil in through the hole for the u-joint after the transmission is installed. This wouldn't apply to Oldsmobiles or 37-up Pontiacs because of the open driveline. It probably does apply to Buicks, but I'm not sure. That about wraps it up at the back of the transmission. At the front, the bearing retainer can go on if you have one. 1937 and later Pontiac didn't have one, as the bellhousing doubles as the cover/retainer. I know now from @Dandy Dave's earlier post that Oldsmobiles also use the bellhousing as a retainer. I believe some of the Buicks do too. Some sealer on the studs couldn't hurt, although there is no front seal, so this probably isn't going to be completely dry. Three things of note here: First the bearing is oiled with the transmission oil, and some flows through. since there is no seal, there is a spiral groove in the input shaft to pull oil that tries to flow out back outside back in. The hole in the retainer/cover runs with a fairly close clearance to the input shaft to help that spiral groove work. Secondly there is a drain hole in the front of the case to let any oil in front of the bearing drain back. Thirdly, there is no support sleeve for the throwout bearing like you would see on many newer manual transmission designs. You are looking at the bare input shaft. Some have advocated getting a seal by using a double sealed bearing, and pulling out the inner seal so it can oil from the inside. There must be some version of this transmission that has a discrete hole you could plug, otherwise I cant explain it. As you can see, it wouldn't seal anything on this particular transmission. Every time you step on the brakes or drive downhill there will be oil ahead of the bearing just like before. The good news it this groove idea works better than you would expect, and there is no seal to fail. Oil that does get out could get into the clutch, but would mostly tend to just run to the ground because there is no throwout bearing support sleeve on the retainer cover to carry the lost oil out into the clutch. That said, parking on a really steep incline is probably not advisable. Here's an internet picture of a more modern transmission (Borg-Warner T5) showing the typical support sleeve: Back up at the top, put the shift forks in place and slide the shift rails in through the holes in the front of the case. I'm not sure if the rails are different because I kept each one with it's fork throughout the cleanup process. Tighten the shift rail bolts. I put a little loctite on the threads as well. Then safety wire them. The important thing is that the hole for the pin/bolt lines up on each fork, and that the notches in the shift rails (one is visible here in green) point up toward the holes the detent balls go in (red). Drop a detent ball in each red hole and put a coil spring on top of each one. put in the piece marked "X" Notice it is not symmetrical. Then put the other shift plate in. It isn't symmetrical either. Put the gasket and top cover on. Sealer or Loctite on the threads of the 5 bolts wouldn't hurt. I really expected the paint on this to be black or engine green. Here it is half cleaned up when you can still see some of the original paint. I believe it to be original because it was dug right into the cast iron, and there were red paint and yellow paintstik inspection marks. More paint like that was found on the lower bellhousing pan, the inspection cover in the top of the bellhousing, and on the lower portions of the bellhousing. I guess this many years on the color might have changed, and this could have been green. I don't really believe it though. I can't make anything out of that other than battleship gray, so that is what I painted the transmission with.

1940

How did you do this exactly? Buy new 16" rims and weld the spokes in?