Bloo

For what it's worth, the 37 Buick mat I put in my 36 Pontiac had the "jute" rolled up separately and not glued to the mat. I glued it on later after trimming it. There was a hole in the "jute" around the gas pedal, and If I remember correctly it lined up, though that was just a happy coincidence as the Buick and Pontiac gas pedals are not similar. I trimmed the sides of the "jute" way back too. It probably would have worked fine as delivered in a 37 Buick, but that is a wider car. I trimmed a bunch off so the jute would be about as far back from the edge as it would have been in a Buick. You mentioned sill plates, and my car has none, so there cant be "jute" out close to the edge, as the weight of the mat is the only thing that holds the edge down. I can see that thickness would cause issues if your sill plates hold the mat down. The jute couldn't be too close to the edge in that case either, and if the rubber mat by itself is pushing the sill plate up against the bottom of the door, I understand the problem and why you would like a thinner mat. I didn't mean to suggest that the modern "jute" was a cure for anything. It does absorb water less readily that the real thing, but I'm not sure it helps that much. The real thing soaks water like as sponge and then rots from being wet. However the modern stuff gets saturated with water too. The "jute" that came with my new mat is the same or similar to what we were using when I was working in an upholstery shop in the early 80s. I'm not sure if you could buy the real thing at that time. Probably, but I never saw any. Good luck, and I hope you get it sorted out to a nice fit.

Compensating for flatness with ANY gasket is asking for trouble, especially on exhaust manifolds. They need to slide around with expansion and contraction from heat. This motion tends to destroy thick gaskets in a hurry. If the manifolds aren't allowed to slide around, they will just break. Cast iron is very strong in compression but weak in tension, so if you are slightly bending them straight with bolt tension that can also cause them to break. It's easy enough to check the flatness with a true straightedge (like a machinists rule) and some feeler gauges to see if anything needs to be done. If it's bad enough, you won't even need the feeler gauges.

There are several "recipes" online, and several tutorials that involve only fairly safe chemicals that might be in your kitchen or bathroom already. You will also need a chunk of zinc. I used an old trim tab from a boat. If I remember correctly I used this recipe: https://thefactoryfiveforum.com/showthread.php?14392-DIY-Zinc-Plating-for-Donor-Nuts-and-Bolts . Read the whole thing as there may be mistakes that got corrected later in the thread. I'm not sure I would bother to set this up just for a couple of springs, but I keep it around for small derusted parts that would likely re-rust. The results typically are not for show, but great for slowing down rust. Nice appearance is possible if you babysit it a lot during the process, but it's still no substitute for a plating shop full of chemicals you don't want to be around. You need some sort of power supply. I already have an adjustable one that is nearly ideal. I think some folks have got away with using wall warts, batteries, etc.

When I first saw this thread, it was in the CCCA section, not the Buick section. A moderator must have moved it. That may explain the earlier comments.

I'm not Billy, but IIRC when I did this I soaked the springs in evaporust, and then home-plated them in zinc to keep them from re-rusting right away. I recall one spring was too far gone, and I salvaged one out of another socket. If you are in the USA, Ace Hardware has a rather large spring collection, and you might find something there. If not, possibly buy a new metal 2-pin socket from the auto parts store and scrap it for the springs.

Jute isn't still used, at least not in North America, and good luck buying any if you want some. I found one potential source in the UK, but never bought any, so I can't confirm if they can really supply it. The stuff we call "jute" in North America today is shredded old unwanted clothes, and has been for at least 50 years. Since an awful lot of old unwanted clothes are polyester, the mystery padding is typically not very absorbent of water when compared to real jute. Of course anything can get waterlogged if enough water is present. If you allow water to get under a rubber mat, it will stay there and rot the floor, padding or no padding. I don't think a thinner mat would be a good thing, nor do I think lighter weight would be a good thing. Most of that rolled stuff these days is made of SBR, which is not very heavy compared to neoprene, EPDM or natural rubber. It feels kind of like plastic. Some is made of PVC, which is plastic. I recently bought a repro 37 Buick mat for my 36 Pontiac. It is not a perfect fit but it is fairly close. I was lucky to get anything as these repro mats seem out of stock everywhere recently for most years and models. One thing that concerned me was that the mat would bunch up. Many GM cars, mine included, have things you need access to under the front floorboard. Permanently attaching the mat to the floor is out of the question. As it turned out there was enough weight (mass) in the repro mat. It is heavy and stiff like a piece of rubber from long ago. It is blocked enough by the steering column, dimmer, firewall pad, etc and stiff enough it doesn't move forward and bunch up. An acquaintance of mine used the rolled bulk rubber mat, and he had to attach it to the floor with snaps to make it stay put. That is a possible solution. 2carb40: For what it's worth, I bought an unpunched version of the mat and ignored the factory placements for the pedals etc. I lined it up according to the floor contour. In my case, that was centered in the car. Yes if you stick your head under the dash, you can see the holes are not where the mat maker intended, and also that I have cut off more mat than they intended, but that is way less noticeable than having the the mat not match the floor contour.

My first preference would be for a factory service manual for your particular year. The highly detailed information will make a lot of things clear that otherwise wouldn't be, particularly if you are new to old cars. That said, MOTOR manuals, and Chilton/MotorAge manuals of that era can also be very useful. You should probably pick up one of those too at some point. The aftermarket manuals cover a whole bunch of makes, models, and years. It is best to pick one where your car is not right at the end of coverage. Some information will be missing for the oldest models in the book, as it was considered less important. Similarly, the aftermarket books may have not have caught up completely with the newest models. When I got my 36 Pontiac, it had a factory service manual with it and i use it... a lot. I suggest joining a club too. I didn't do it right away, but It puts you in touch with the right people! Early in my ownership of the Pontiac, I made some parts from scratch, guided by terrible internet pictures, that I might have just found and bought If I was better connected. There is a club just for the 36-38 Buicks. @MCHinson should know something about that.

Yes, Richfield. Now known as ARCO.

What floor covering did they give him with that special car? I didn't pick up on the fact that the shades on the 50 Buick posted earlier were adjustable universal-fit ones until rocketraider pointed it out. I guess that means they could be from about any era. If they were custom fit, the availablity would probably disappear fairly soon after the bodystyles changed. Adjustable ones could go on in JC Whitney for decades. I too have seen plastic versions on newer models, but nothing quite as recent as that Nissan.

Hey John, does everything else about the new shaft fit except that front spline? I see in @avgwarhawk's first link that the u-joint is held in with bolted tabs, and a tapered inner surface, and it is part #516601, and I see from @avgwarhawk's second link another driveshaft like what I believe you have described. I have no book for 1953, but I have a July 1952 Pontiac-Olds-Buick interchange book and it says that a 506414 yoke fits 1939-1951 Pontiac all, and 1951 Oldsmobile all. Here is one on ebay, and though the pictures are lousy and there are no measurements other than length of the round part, the yoke appears to have flat surfaces cut on the inside for C clips. https://www.ebay.com/itm/184593277911 I do know that all of those 39-51 Pontiac 3 speed transmissions are also the 5-bolt transmissions. Can someone with 1950s Pontiac books check and see if the output shaft and any other parts that touch the yoke on a 1953 are the same parts as a 1951 and earlier Pontiac? I suspect they are, and if so the 506414 should fit the transmission.

Right hand drive still in 1917?

Is this a HydraMatic or a stick? If it is a stick, does it have a 5 bolt top cover or 6?

Those look like they could be off-the-shelf antennas intended for the front fender or whatever. Dual antennas on the back fenders were a thing on some cars in the late 50s, usually on a base that pointed the antenna back.

I saved this from one of @trimacar's posts long ago:

They are probably the same period as the car I think. I doubt you would have found them a lot later, especially for a sedan. That is wild speculation. Lets see what everyone else says. I'm not him, but probably the 50 had flat floors and maybe even a rubber front mat, and the 59 had sunken floors and carpet. I recall my mother always referred to vacuuming out the car as "sweeping out the car", even though it made no sense due to the sunken floors. Years later it finally dawned on me that it would have been possible on older cars to sweep them out with a whisk broom, and that's how they probably did it. I have one of her whisk brooms in the glovebox of the 36 Pontiac now. "Step down" Hudsons were so named because of the sunken floor, and may have been the first. The newest car I have owned with flat floors was a 66 Studebaker. I wonder if those were truly the first and last?

I can't find any reference to that generator number, I must not have the right book. How many brushes? A cutout combined with a current regulator (but no voltage regulator) makes no sense. I doubt they actually did that. Is the 961-D original to the 34 LaSalle? Are there any complications like automatic starting? On most cars in 1934 there is only a cutout, and no regulation at all except what happens by a third brush in the generator. By 1936, LaSalle had a modern 2 brush generator available with a true 3 core regulator (cutout, voltage regulator, current regualtor) that it shared with Ponitac police cars. Those regulators had 6(!) terminals. They are almost impossible to find. Is a 34 LaSalle positive or negative ground?

It might be typical, as the ammeter (if wired correctly) should show only current in or out of the battery. Available charge current could vary quite a bit as the signal bulbs go on and off.

I use the ethanol-laced gas because it is the crappiest. I like to go on trips, and want to know the car will work with whatever gas I encounter. Here in the US, the ethanol-laced gas is available literally everywhere, but the supplies of ethanol-free gas are spotty at best. What kind can you get easiest in Australia? I would sort the car out using that, whichever it is. I do put the ethanol-free gas in when I store the car through the snowy season, because the ethanol-laced gas spoils faster. Don't worry about lead. Lead might matter if you are towing, otherwise probably not. It still might not matter on a car that old. Lead substitutes typically aren't real lead, so their usefulness is questionable even if you really did need the lead.

As someone who has put an awful lot of miles on C body Mopars, I don't hate the tires. At least I don't hate them half as much as the tires that probably came on it new. The right answer for this car is some fat radials with a lot of tread on the ground. Not for show of course. Assuming that is what is already on it, I would just flip them around blackwall. White letters don't look great with hubcaps. I agree whitewalls (white stripe) would look nice. The trouble is the tires that come with a white stripe and would also fit this car are likely to be rubbish.

I can't for the life of me understand why this subject is controversial. This is a restoration forum. Yes, it's probably going to cost more than a new set of shocks. So what? What if new shocks weren't available for this model, then what would the answer be? I get that the parts to fix this were never available separately when the shocks were new, so there's no easy answer to the OP's question. I have my doubts it will be found in Dorman, because a split bushing of the type used on a bolted connection, and commonly sold separately wont work here. I would sure look in Dorman though just in case! It needs to be a one piece bushing that pops through the eye as there are no solidly bolted washers to hold the bushing in the eye. The shaft would have to be pressed in after the fact. When I can't get parts for something I make them. I don't think that casting them in place as I suggested above is a completely crazy idea. It just might work.

Chevy wheels of that era are 6 lug, except Chevy Standard, which are a screwball 5 lug pattern that fits nothing else.

If I'm not mistaken, the PB is a four cylinder engine. It is unlikely to be related to the sixes.

I think MOTOR might have that a little wrong. Coils for 6v cars have a primary resistance of about 1.4-1.5 ohms. Coils for 12v cars with no ballast resistor (and no resistance wire) have a primary resistance of about 2.8-3.0 ohms. Coils for 12v cars with a resistor (or resistance wire) have a primary resistance of about 1.4-1.5 ohms, and a are used with a series resistor to make up the rest of the 3 ohms. There is more to the story of what goes on inside a coil, but I imagine the current drawn with the points closed and the engine off is all about the same. On a 12v car with a resistor, the coil is running on about half of the available 13.8-14.7 system voltage. The coil sees maybe 7 volts or a little more with the engine running and the charging system working. That's about the same as the voltage a coil on a 6 volt car sees with the engine running and the charging system working. When you are cranking the engine, the voltage available will be much less. On a 12 volt car, the cranking voltage might pull as low as 10 volts or maybe even lower before the battery is no longer able to crank. The ignition now has to run on significantly less voltage than it is designed for, maybe 5.25 volts instead of 7 on a car with a resistor (or resistor wire). It only gets worse when the engine chugs down while cranking. Right when you need the spark to be hot, it is at it's absolute weakest. A similar situation exists on 6 volt cars. With a starting bypass, full battery voltage is sent to the coil while cranking. The 12v ignition coil, designed to run on about 7 volts with the resistor, might get 9-11 volts. You get a hotter than normal spark while cranking. This makes the car much more likely to start when the battery is low. It is the biggest real world advantage of a 12 volt system over a 6 volt one. I have not yet seen a 12 volt conversion where someone bothered to implement it. Starting bypasses are theoretically possible on 6 volt cars. As previously mentioned, on very old cars, Ford, Buick, Dodge Brothers, Pierce-Arrow, and possibly others had 6v systems that had a ballast resistor. Those systems ran on only part of the available voltage, just like 12 volt systems with a resistor. That means they could have implemented a bypass for starting, but as far as I know none of them did. All the 6v coils i have seen that used resistors were in weird form factors, not the round cylinder with the terminals up on top that we expect to see on newer antiques.

How about one of these?