Bloo

Weird. Both links work for me.

Even so, it would be nice to have an old one for a pattern don't you think? Sure beats guessing from blurry internet pictures.

There were 3 types in those days, Eaton used a multiple-disc clutch like an automatic transmission (that is probably a disc for an Eaton type). The Auburn type used cone clutches, and then there was the Detroit Locker that used dog engagement similar to that used for the gears in a racing transmission. Detroit Lockers were very harsh, but were factory equipment in some high performance Fords. In all 3 types, torque engaged the clutch(es) and locked the axles together. There are a bunch more types now, Torsen, Quaife, etc.

I'm surprised it's only a factor of 50. Did you include the required hardener and reducer? I have seen prices quoted for paint in the last few years that would have bought the car with money left over for gas and insurance when I was in high school.

Yes, plates were registered to the car in WA, CA, and I suspect all western states. I hesitate to even jump in about "big slip daddy" except to say that it confused me when I was a kid. I was fairly in tune to car culture back then (70s), and I have never heard anyone say "big slip daddy" before or since. Since he is enumerating the features of the car (competition clutch, four on the floor, lake pipes, etc.) I wondered if it could mean a limited slip rear axle. I could find no one who had ever heard a limited slip axle called a "big slip daddy". On the other hand "pink slip" for a title and "racing for pinks" was well understood slang up here in Washington that everybody knew, even though Washington titles (proof of ownership) were green, and the pink piece of paper was only a registration that meant nothing other than that you had paid your fees. It was just understood that they were probably pink somewhere else, or maybe pink back in 1963. I kept picking the needle up and putting it back to see if I could make "pink slip, daddy" out of it, because that would sort of make sense. I couldn't. It sounds like "big slip daddy" to me. Also, why would anyone be carrying a note on a 32 Ford in 1963? Of course he had the title. We may never know.

I'm not a Californian, but I can tackle that. Here in Washington, plates used to be replaced every 1-3 years until 1963. That year all plates were replaced with a 3 letter 3 number plate that said "Wash 63" on it. New cars got it 1963-65, but all the old ones did too. After that, you didn't have to change them unless they were damaged. Few did. The upshot was that the same cars carried the same number for ages. It was true for a couple of newer style Washington plates as well. One could recognize a car by it's number as it fell through time, much like you still can in the UK. A Wash 63 plate also implied some sort of tie to the past, and that not much had changed over the years, possibly an unmolested car, sort of like "matching numbers", back before the term was abused and became meaningless. It also told you what county the car was in when it got the plates. Of course older cars were already older when they got the Wash 63 plates, but it was still part of the car's history, and allowed you to recognize a specific car. For decades almost every pre-January 1966 car had them. They are more recognizable by far than YOM plates because they were around so long and they are the ones everybody remembers. They show up in period pictures a lot. You might see YOUR car in some street scene... I hated to see that era pass. After 2000 or so it became impossible to tag them anymore. I believe you can STILL tag the black and yellow plates in California. Good on them if so. I think you can also for a fee get a modern black/yellow plate for your modern car in California. I'm not sure what that's about as there is no history involved, but it is a good looking license plate.

F&J nailed it. If the bolts bolted at a different level than the friction surface, then they still need to. The difference between the two needs to be the same as whatever the factory had. If not, then the clamping force will be wrong, and the contact surface for the throw out bearing will be at the wrong height. You might not even be able to assemble it, or the clutch might not disengage. If the two surfaces were different enough from the factory, and they had to take a lot of metal off to flatten it, and you have to take off a bunch more to get the step back, then the whole clutch, including the contact surface for the throwout bearing, will be further away from the fork pivot than it was. If it is a big difference, and the pivot is not adjustable for height, then you may not be able to get the linkage to work right. I have a Pontiac clutch apart right now, and didn't have a setup like F&J described, but it did have a ridge around the outer edge of the flywheel to center the pressure plate (!). What centers the pressure plate on this Buick? If it used a ridge to do that instead of pins or shoulder bolts, it may run out of balance without the ridge. Anthon Stout: We really need more information. What series 37 Buick do you have? @MCHinson @Gary W @37_Roadmaster_C

Glad you got it fixed!

If you are using conventional coils on a 6v system, there will be no resistor. That is because to the best of my knowledge, nobody makes a 6v coil in the "normal" format (cylindrical with 2 terminals and a tower on top) for use with a resistor. To the best of my knowledge nobody ever did. I have never seen one, and I don't expect to. Ask the vendor of the conversion kit, as they should know, but I can't see it going any other way. Ford had some weird shape 6v coils that used a resistor. Maybe that is what you have. I can't tell much from the pictures.

That little wire trips up so many people.... Glad you got it sorted out.

Yes, be sure the water pump is free before you try to crank it.

I don't know. It might be a different model or trim level. Bumpers may have even been aftermarket in those days? I'm not sure if that was still the case in 1931. I could not find one with the exact same stuff on it as yours. I found one with no sidemounts and no stone guard, but the louvers in the side of the hood were different. In your picture you can even see the outline of the Chevrolet emblem, and the visible bottom of the radiator and crank hole seems to make it not a 1929 or 1930. If you post this over on the Vintage Chevrolet Club forums at https://vccachat.org , I expect those guys will be able to ID it down to the last detail.

I think its a 1931 Chevrolet.

That doesn't look like it has a removable head. I would say you have to work on the valves through those holes, and the pistons from the bottom. That's pretty normal for 1914, most car engines didn't have heads yet, the model T Ford being one of the only ones that did.

The other one appears to be the big Nash Ambassador six, circa late 40s to early 50s. My guess is 1949 or later, most likely 1949-51.

It's a Pontiac six, 1940 or later I think, because the older ones had an emblem cast in the side. I think 1939 was the last year for the emblem. It could be as late as 1954 (the last year they made them). The last 2 or 3 years of production had a 2 barrel carburetor, so if it has one, that narrows it down.

Glad you got that sorted. Thanks for posting the solution for others to see in the future.

When I was a kid working in a gas station in the 80s I made a comment about like that to my boss in reference to my first car, a 53 model. He started laughing at me. He said "When I started working here in 1956, we already had multi-viscosity detergent oil. It was called "Heavy Duty" and we put it in everything that came through the door. What makes you think that car never had any detergent oil in it?" Your mileage may vary.

Make sure that left side indicator has a good bulb in it and is grounded to the dash. If all is ok, it has to be a problem with the turn signal switch. The switch is hooking either of those dash indicators to the "pilot" terminal on the flasher, depending on which side you turn on. Put another way, the power source for both dash indicators is the "pilot" terminal, and the only thing in-between is the switch.

Is it OHV? I can't see any valve seats. 1956 196ci if it is OHV and still has that side mounted water pump, or so I'm told.

On any breather system there has to be a "way in" and a "way out" for the crankcase ventilation air. The way out is a breather tube that is attached to the side of the engine. It points down. It creates a suction when the car is moving. I don't remember where the way in is on that car. Someone in this thread will probably know.

And cover your skin. All of it.

You can't see it externally. I have a car with a similar setup, the oil that leaks from the rear main is supposed to go into a groove that drains through the tube back into the oil sump. All this is inside the pan. You aren't parking on a steep hill are you? There would be nothing to hold the oil back if so. If it leaks anyway something else is wrong. Check the stuff @DonMicheletti mentioned, starting with the breather(s) because that would be an inexpensive fix.

I'll bet the two are the same. The Rambler and Statesman were the same engine design. I don't recall if the displacement was different. Maybe one version of the head had a smaller chamber. I doubt it though. It makes you wonder why the 1946-49 600 was left out. As far as I know those were more of the same engine design. Also, the Rambler did not exist from 1946-49.

How it appears to work: