Bloo

I sent mine out to Frank Mance Plating for real silver after seeing pictures of @Terry Wiegand's reflectors. They did a very nice job. I imagine you could do it yourself somehow, but silver plate to a reasonable thickness would most likely require some sort of cyanide bath, and I wanted nothing to do with it. For Aluminum/Glass, UVIRA gets rave reviews. Are they still doing it? I think you were fortunate. In period, an over-abundance of shot reflectors were what drove the change to sealed beam around 1940. One of several reasons I stuck with silver was to find out how long it would last with proper care. My silver plating is 2 years old now, and on my recent road trip I noticed a very slight bit of tarnish when I pulled over in Iowa to change a bulb. You can't see it unless you take the lens off. It will clean up easily I think, and I probably shouldn't allow it to increase. I use the car more than most people would these days. A car that sits pampered indoors all the time might go longer before you start to see the signs of tarnish. The "period" cleaning method is to use lampblack and alcohol on something extremely soft, like a cottonball, and do not make circular motions, only go straight out from the middle to the outer rim. There is only so much silver, and though there are more aggressive methods, less is more. When you need more powerful polish it may already be too late. Before replating, mine did not respond to lampblack at all. They were already showing brass in places. With a very mild silver polish, it might have been wadding polish, I was able to get the silver parts to come back without noticably losing more plating. Obviously I couldn't bring the worn through areas back. I'd love for these replated reflectors to last 100 years, but the chances aren't looking good to me. As it sits, with the tiny amount of data I have, I think it's going to be the lampblack trick every 2 years until the silver wears through. I have no idea how long that will be. Keep us posted on what you do and let us know how it turns out.

Decades ago a German co-worker of mine said something along the lines of, "Germans pronounce every letter. There are not silent ones". He was pretty dismissive of the idea of "Porsh".

Looks like it might be 550-18? These old cars wont dig in like a modern car and will tend to skid. It is their nature. People drove slower. If the tires are old, new ones make a huge improvement but don't expect miracles. Radials would probably help some, but I am not enthusiastic about that with split rims. You didn't mention which kind of split rims they are, but I don't think it matters. Radials might be best left to cars with drop center rims. Assuming we are talking bias ply then, Blockley Tyre (UK) makes high performance bias ply tires and tubes in 550-18 and similar sizes. They are aimed at vintage racing mostly, and they are expensive. Most if not all carry DOT markings and a speed rating. I doubt you could find better bias ply tires. Blackwall only. Beyond that if you are in the US, you would be shopping for replicas from Coker, Lucas, or Universal. These would be copies of bias ply tires from the period the car was made in or shortly thereafter. Blackwall or whitewall.

Everyone from UK I have ever known pronounced the "U" as a separate syllable, while Americans typically do not pronounce the "U" separately.

A close perusal of Washington State environmental laws regarding current and former gas stations would be wise.

And even then, Pontiac wasn't committed to the idea. Some Pontiac sixes after 1939(?) had a sort of centrifugal filter in the oil pickup, meant to go 100,000 miles before cleanout. There was still no cartridge filter to change with the oil unless one was added.

@Str8-8-Dave, you are spot on but I think maybe you made a typo, Land Rover for Land Cruiser (Toyota). That appears to be a Toyota diff in the second pic. I only point this out because Land Rover really did use old fashioned spiral bevel gears (no offset) well into the 2000s. They were to my knowledge the only company to do so. Spiral Bevel designs were abandoned in the US before WWII, and as far as I know, abandoned in the UK by the 1950s with one glaring exception: Land Rover.

My own tool from those days is an OTC 2000. Not as good as a 4000, but good enough, and it's another possibility. Whatever you get, make sure it has the right firmware to cover 1988 GM. This is in a cartridge on scan tools of this vintage. On OTC it plugs in the bottom. Which cars it covers will be printed on the cartridge. Also make sure the GM connector is present to plug into the diagnostic connector on your car. The connector it connects to in the car is usually under the dash in the driver's area on GM. I would consider putting it back. You'd best make a separate thread for that one, or this thread will become a confusing mess you wont even believe until you see it. That is spot on. The first thing I thought of was the regulator until I read it was replaced. For the record, the way to check for a blown diaphragm flooding the engine is to pull the vacuum hose off of the regulator when the car has just been running. There should not be fuel getting in there. The way to check for operation is to check the fuel pressure with a gauge. The pressure should be close to spec, and when you pull the vacuum hose off of the regulator, the fuel pressure on the gauge should rise (approximately 5 PSI) from whatever it was. The change indicates that it is regulating. However I would not throw the most obvious parts at it. Cars used to cross my service bay that had previously had every engine control part replaced including the ECM (computer), and still had the original problem. GM of this era has "live data" in the scan tool, so you can actually watch what each sensor does while the car is running. Not too many cars of that era did. I would definitely want to see scan tool data, otherwise you are flying blind. There will be trouble codes. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that you just replace the part the code refers to. In the pre-OBD2 days, that almost never worked. When you see a code, look at the scan tool data. For instance the -40F coolant temperature @Seafoam65 mentioned. That is going to be a problem in the sensor or it's wiring, and you should be able to see in the data that you have fixed it. It is just as common, on the other hand, for a sensor to set a code because it is correctly reporting a wrong reading. For instance, a code for an oxygen sensor stuck rich. Is the sensor bad? Or, is the sensor correctly reporting that the engine is running extremely rich? Don't fall into the trap of thinking it has to be the engine control system. Lots of people do, but the reality is that the engines still get all the same burned valves, blown head gaskets, ignition problems, etc. that cars with points and a carburetor had. That argues for a massive air leak somewhere. Look all around that cylinder and the intake runner feeding it. Anything that could be leaking? Where do the power brakes connect? A bad brake booster leaks air. You can disconnect it's hose and cap the fitting going to the engine. I don't recommend driving like that, the brake pedal will be very hard to push, but just running in the driveway you should notice a huge difference if the brake booster leaks. With all that out of the way, please post some pictures so we know exactly what engine and emission package this is. 1) a picture of the engine 2) a picture of the smog sticker (engine data and emission control information). It is on the core support, or an inner fenderwell, or on the underside of the hood... usually. A big white sticker.

Didn't the axle design change that year? GM history has several instances where the axle design changed and a close but not exact ratio was used in the new design. 3.36 to 3.40 is about a 1% change.

I think that's a terrible idea. If that were a newer engine it would melt for sure. Could you get away with it on a low compression low horse power engine like a Maxwell? Maybe, but I would bet against it. I think it is going to make things worse. I recall the time in my teens I re-bushed a heat riser shaft in brass, and found the bushings completely missing less than a week later. 56% Silver Solder has a lower melting point than brass by quite a bit. It may be tough to find, but you should be looking for an undamaged manifold. Cast iron is extremely difficult stuff to weld. Also, not all cast iron is the same. Exhaust manifolds are more difficult than a typical cast iron part. Many cast iron repairs today are done by pinning. I don't know if that is practical on on a Maxwell exhaust manifold, but it is worth looking into. Once repaired, an exhaust manifolds expands and contracts with heat, sliding (we hope) around on the block (or head) a little as it heats and cools, because if the expansion and contraction motion is restricted it just breaks. That's how a lot of them get broke in the first place. Then, there is an exhaust pipe attached like a big lever that is also trying to break the manifold. This thread looks like a success story. You might get in touch with Paul S and see if he can fix it.

Prewar whitewalls were 2-sided, but these tires are probably far too old to be whitewall. The car looks to be from about 1910-1911. Black rubber for tires was not a common thing yet if it even existed when that car was new. I doubt it existed. The car looks nearly new in the picture. I would guess the tires are all white, but gray and natural rubber are also possibilities.

Maserati A6 Frua(?) coupe? I don't think I've ever seen that one.

Amen.

Synthetic oil is fine. Any high quality oil is fine.

I suggest more information, and a picture of what you want if you can find one somewhere. There are a gazillion different types of rim for a model T, some with lugs some without. When you add in the other makes that used 30x3-1/2 and the aftermarket stuff that was common (because not all model T's had demountable rims from the factory), it gets unbelievably confusing unbelievably fast. The varieties are almost endless. "3 rings" doesn't sound like anything I saw when trying to find more rims for a 30x3-1/2 equipped 1913 Studebaker. That sounds like a multi-piece rim, and multi-piece rims are almost always for straight sided tires, not 30x3-1/2 which are clinchers. I doubt you will get much response without more info, but I wish you the best of luck in your search.

That design is not one I am familiar with. Speaking generally, there is no way I know of to test synchros in an assembled transmission. If disassembled, you clean up both halves of the synchro, put a couple drops of oil on, and push together while twisting. The synchro is a brake and should behave like one. It should displace the oil and either drag hard or grab right away. Is there anything in the service manual about the synchros? Beyond checking the synchro's condition there may be other things to set. In 1936 for instance, the Chevrolet Master's synchromesh design requires setting clearances in the synchros with selective parts, while Buick 40's synchromesh design does not.

In what state or country was this picture taken?

On second thought does anyone know how to decode the tag? Why do we think this is really a 300L? It would explain a lot if it isn't.

GM and couple other makers kept carburetors on a model or two until the last year it was possible to certify them. It might have been 1991(?).

Not much difference in horsepower either until the early 50s. Overhead valve engines of the passenger car type just made a bunch more mechanical noise. Flathead performance is limited by breathing, as is performance in any engine really, but in flatheads breathing is linked to the compression ratio. When everyone had low compression ratios, that didn't matter much. When the horse power race really got going in the early 50s, compression ratios shot up and the flathead was obsolete almost overnight. I'm probably going to get crucified for saying this, but due to some interesting design choices, Ford V8 flatheads must be considered as a separate group from the inline flatheads offered by most other makes. That doesn't mean you shouldn't buy one. It does probably mean it is going to be more temperamental. The flip side is that generally they were faster cars than their direct competition at the time. Parts availability is very good, and there is a lot of help online. American cars of the prewar and early postwar period generally speaking were built for low octane gas and get really lousy gas mileage. A Mobilgas Economy Run winner in those days most likely had a flathead six and optional overdrive. Maybe a supercharged car like a Graham, or maybe an economy car with a tiny inline six, something like a Nash 600 or a Studebaker Champion . Those last two are not what you are looking for if you want speed, even with overdrive.

Hudson, at least in the postwar era, never had an overhead valve engine completely of their own design. Their own 308 flathead six was fairly dominant in NASCAR in the early 50s. Hudson's first postwar OHV engine was the outsourced Packard V8, after merging with Nash/Kelvnator to become American Motors. The Packard deal did not last long, probably less than a year, so technically the first postwar OHV "Hudson" engine was the Nash/Hudson 287/327 V8 that replaced the Packard V8. That would have been 1956 or 1957. The Hudson "stepdown" bodies were gone by then, and Hudsons shared a Nash designed body. A year later the Hudson and Nash nameplates disappeared entirely. You won't find overdrive in GM cars in the prewar or early postwar eras. They didn't offer it. Everyone else did. Maybe because it was a Chrysler design and Borg Warner produced. Chevrolet didn't even offer overdrive until 1955. Pontiac 1962, Cadillac never, and I'm not sure about the rest. You can find highway-appropriate gearing in many early postwar GM cars if they have Hydra-Matic. It wasn't technically overdrive, but it had 4 gears instead of three, and that allows a taller high gear. Overhead valves were not a clear advantage until the horsepower race started heating up in the early 50s. Most manufacturers shunned them through the 30s and 40s except Chevrolet and Buick, who had been pushing the overhead valve idea since the horseless carriage era. They couldn't really just stop without losing face. They were probably really glad they hadn't stopped when the early 50s rolled around.

Lower optioned? I doubt you could even get fluff accessories like that in a letter series 300. They are serious performance cars with highly tuned engines and stiff suspensions. Chrysler would probably bolt on a bunch of "options" if you special ordered it, but I doubt they would give you A/C. My guess is it wouldn't even fit. Chrysler had cars for people who wanted things like power windows and A/C. Basically everything in the catalog except this. Since the early 60s they even made a "300" without the letter for people who wanted something that behaved more like a luxurious Chrysler but who still wanted the looks of the "300".

One of my aunts had one of these in the 70s in Petty blue. I can't remember how long she kept it, but it sure wouldn't have been all done in 3 years here in WA. 30 year old cars were common and normal. Hers was a little lower slung than this one, and what doesn't really show in the pics because of the angle is that the outer rails above the doors are raised a little and the roof dips in the middle, leading back to that scoop thing that directs air over the back of the car. That just might be the coolest styling detail on a station wagon ever.

Henry B. Joy and Packard were very closely involved in that project. No surprise to see Packard promoting it.

Dielectric grease is often used on connections such as a battery cable to a frame to improve conductivity, the idea being that the metal is touching because it is under pressure, and the grease blocks oxygen to prevent degradation of the connection due to rust, corrosion, etc. I don't like it for the exact reasons @Stude Light outlined, and almost never use it. The carbon grease is new to me. I'll have to get some to play with. Thanks! Another thing you can experiment with is the grey goop electricians use on aluminum wire. There is one member here who swears by it, I don't remember who. When rebuilding my headlights I used it on some connections, mainly the grounds. The lights are bright and the loss is quite low. Is it just because everything is cleaned up or did the aluminum goop help? I don't know, but it is something to think about. The manufacturer of the goop does not specify any uses like this. Nevertheless a year later the connections remain very good.