Bloo

I've not heard of that. I wouldn't want to be wallowing around in it setting the hoist blocks if there are indeed loose fibers on top. That would be like working in insulation all the time. Yuck. Just epoxy it, whether it's fancy concrete or just the normal concrete. Epoxy coated floor is so much more user friendly than bare concrete you won't believe the difference.

That's a good start. I have a strong hunch you are going to need a lot more elaborate baffle than that. If the baffle is inadequate, your oil consumption will skyrocket. There is probably less oil spraying around in there than say... a valve cover, but still, Chevrolet had an elaborate oil separator down in the valley for the draft tube and just kept using it for a couple of years when PCV came along. You need to separate the oil from crankcase vapor, otherwise you will just burn it. Watch your oil level like a hawk until you figure out whether your solution was adequate. Choose a valve for an engine of about the same displacement and RPM range. That's the easy way. It's about flow. Theoretically one from a smaller but higher RPM engine, or a larger but lower RPM engine could possibly be fine, but there is too much to think about. Just hit the displacement and redline in sort of broad strokes and try it. If it's too much, go smaller. You will never match what the nailhead or any other engine "needs". Even with careful carburetor recalibration, there is a limit to how much of a parasitic vacuum leak an engine will tolerate. It is *never* enough air to ventilate the engine 100% of the time. On a brand new engine, some percentage of the time the PCV system will blow backwards. This is why there is always a little slime around a breather cap. As the engine wears and blowby increases, the amount of time the PCV system can keep up decreases, sometimes dramatically. Pay attention to the direction of flow. It's not always obvious. It helps if you can see a valve you might use installed on the car it belongs on so you can be sure which way it goes. Threads don't mean much. It's a check valve, and also flow metering. Without a check valve, a backfire can cause a crankcase explosion. Also, early systems that used an orifice instead of a PCV valve plugged the orifice very quickly. The PCV valve prevents plugging, not perfectly, but it is a huge improvement over an orifice. For PCV to work correctly, The carburetor needs to have a dedicated PCV port, or you need a dedicated PCV plate under the carburetor. Some carburetors have the PCV routed out the back, but not many because the idle jets are in the front. You'd need one of those with PCV on the back for maximum stealth. The PCV vapors need to mix with the incoming air/fuel or you are gonna have a bad time. Most commonly, the ports exit right below the idle jets. Some Fords had it over closer to the axis of the primary throttle shaft, but the goal is the same. It must mix with whatever is coming through the idle jets and transfer ports. Any PCV passage you make will have a tendency to plug right away, and you will notice the passages in carburetors and OEM PCV plates are huge. The outlets where they mix with the air/fuel are also huge. It's no accident. All flow metering is done at the PCV valve (or orifice). Plain vacuum ports will not work. It has been done, A few Ramblers and some circa 63 "California conversions" are like this. No amount of rejetting or recalibration can fix it, even if you don't mind how much fuel you burn. The fuel distribution is just too far off. Cars like this are basically untunable, and stink to high heaven. One final thought. There has to be a way in for fresh air (a breather cap will do), but if there is still a draft tube in the mix somewhere it must go. It becomes an inlet, and will suck dirt during the periods the PCV works. Best of luck picking out an appropriate valve.

1962-63?. The round tail lights pretty much nail that down. If I am not mistaken, the flatter roofline appeared in 1961, and 1964 was a total redesign, but using those same back fenders. But in 64 the nose was different and the roofline was wrong again.

I used Delta Cams, Tacoma, WA. They have an excellent reputation, and have been supplying hobbyists with custom cam grinds for decades. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I would call it recent. It was before covid. It worked out fine as far as I know, It hardly ever gets driven. I was driving it last week though. I don't recall what it cost. It was more than new lifters but not very much more. They disassembled and cleaned them, and reground the faces. Turnaround on that and a cam regrind was surprisingly fast. Probably a day or two. I didn't mail it as i was going to Seattle anyway, and that's close. I dropped them off and picked them up in Tacoma. Be sure to check your lifter preload. Delta said it shouldn't change much, but I suspected it was already out of whack due to high mileage. It was. If your engine adjusts lifter preload by selective pushrod length like a Ford FE does, There is an outfit in Oregon called "Smith Brothers" who will make you some custom ones if you can't buy what you need in a standard size. I needed 3 oddballs.

I don't know if it's disinformation? I am no expert on these. If it is mechanical only, that could help explain it. It was an option in 37 on the Reo bodied cars that I am interested in. Those overdrives were pure mechanical, because that's just how a Borg Warner overdrive was in 37. They changed every year, and as I recall there is an article about all the versions on P15-D24.com. 39 may have been the first year for the electric ones in several makes(?). Maybe Graham had a few all-mechanical left overs? My dad used to tell a story about thumbing a ride in Kansas in 39 or 40, and catching a ride with some salesman in a supercharged Hollywood. They were brand new at the time, maybe not even out yet, and I think it was the first one he had seen. The salesman was driving the Hollywood as fast as it would go, probably 80mph or more, at a time when people drove 45 or 50. He said you could see a long way ahead on the flat land, and now and then a car or tractor would be approaching from a side road, with no idea how fast that Graham was probably approaching. There were some close calls. I told that story to an informal group at the Graham nationals, and was surprised when 2 or 3 people said Hollywoods weren't built with overdrive because it doesn't fit, but some folks had managed to cram one in later on. Some newer car has an adapter that mounts the Overdrive solenoid on a right angle so it hugs the transmission. It might be the 49-50 Ford Convertible. Maybe that's the secret to getting it in there? This was several years ago, and I was brand new to the Graham club. I don't know if the people I was talking to were authorities on Hollywoods or not. There were some Hollywood owners in the room though. Anyhow, thanks for responding. I hadn't seen the earlier thread before now. I was hoping you would jump in as you seem to know a lot about these cars.

Newer production aftermarket switches in some of the common aftermarket brands have an "L" suffix on the part number and are rated to come on at a lower pressure than the originals ever did. Whether they are absolute junk or not is a separate issue. I don't know. The main claim to fame I remember about the Harley switch is that it can withstand DOT 5 brake fluid. Too much pressure needed to activate has always been the bugaboo in these pressure switches. Well, that and leaking. Glad you got one that works right.

Oh? Was that even an option? I asked the question at the Graham club nationals when it was in Graham, WA, and was told no, because it didn't fit, but there is some trick you can do to make it happen and a few of them have overdrive now. Do any of you know more about this?

One caution about Singer 111w. There are a bunch of versions, and if you are thinking of buying one, be sure to look up the original specs for the exact model that you are considering. Some 111w can handle more total thickness of material than others. By handle I mean if you lift the presser foot up does it go up high enough to insert the giant stack of material you had in mind. Even the best versions of the 111 will have less space there than you probably think. I don't think I have ever seen a 111w with reverse. I doubt they made one, but can't rule it out. Reverse is desirable, but not nearly the big deal it might seem. I once drove about 3 hours to look at a 111w at a university surplus sale. Only one picture was posted and no exact model number. As it turned out it did not have a walking foot. Yes, Singer made a version of this world famous walking foot machine with no walking foot. Caveat emptor. How good is the 111w? Good enough that it spawned a bunch of clones. In fact several different machines in several different brands you might see in an upholstery shop today are based on the 111w. The Consew 225, 226, 206RB and several Jukis, for starters. There are others.

I can't speak to the Bernina, but a walking foot is what you want for upholstery, period. You can do without, but I don't recommend it. The learning curve is steep. I learned on a Singer 31-15 (no walking foot) in an upholstery shop I worked in when I was in my teens. The man who taught me said "if you can get good results with this, you can sew on anything". He was right and I am glad I did it, but learning to manage it while also learning to control a clutch motor, manage multiple layers, selvage, welting, keeping the seam straight, go around corners where nothing wants to stay aligned etc. was not what I would call easy. It definitely wasn't quick. No regrets here, I was doing it for a living and working my way up as fast as possible. I really do cringe when I think of hobbyists who might only want to upholster 2 or 3 cars potentially sleepwalking down this path because the machine without a walking foot is a little cheaper. It comes up in threads here every now and then. That machine is a whole different animal, and is generally speaking not for upholstery. I wish I owned one. When I was young I used to see those and similar machines in shoe repair shops. I imagine it is good for that as well as harnesses, straps, and other heavy leather work. There are times I could really use that extra access. The last time I made a shift boot, I was really wishing for a machine like that. Recently, I saw a similar machine being used in another thread here on some brass era upholstery in a tight spot Marking the material, especially if leather, is always a concern. I think I may have occasionally used something slippery or some tape with the old 31-15 but not usually. Marking from the feed dogs was much more of a concern. Sometimes the good face is down. It's unavoidable. For some machines, feed dogs are available in different levels of aggressiveness. As for the presser foot, at some point the 31-15 got a Teflon foot, but not when I was learning on it. Roller feet also exist. I wouldn't really trust any of these not to mark, you just have to be really careful when working with material that might mark easy. On a machine without a walking foot, if you take 2 pieces of material, upholstery leather or not, that are the same length, and sew them together when you are getting close to the end you will notice they are no longer the same length. The bottom fed significantly more material than the top. That won't do. You manage this by pulling forward on the top piece, but that would make the feed dogs lose control of the material, so you also have to pull back on both layers. Now, since you are pulling back, you have to pull forward on the top even harder so you are not moving the material. Now, as the dogs feed the material, move both hands at the same speed the dogs are feeding without varying the tension on either layer. That is for 2 layers, but you probably have a piece of welting in there too, and maybe multiple layers. Of course some part will walk out of place, or you will come to a corner, and you will stop, and need to restart at exactly the same hand tension on all the parts. If you miss a tiny bit, the stitch length will be uneven. Miss a little more, and the machine will tie a knot and break the thread. Someone with experience juggling cats might pick this up a little quicker than I did.

This has been going on much longer that Covid. Much hearsay follows. Salt recommended. Right after they drastically dropped the zinc level in the oil, people were reporting cam failures, and blaming it on the oil. I did not learn of the alleged zinc issue until a couple years later when i had two cams fail. These were in old well used engines in rarely driven cars, a Chevy Smallblock and a Ford FE. It could easily have been a coincidence, but these were rarely driven cars, and both failed soon after an oil change. I had never heard of "low zinc" oil and had just changed using a quality brand of oil like always. Googling for better gaskets, some flourolastmer for the Chevy and some oem-type Victor Reinz for the Ford, I stumbled across many old threads about Zinc and oil and cam failures, but several of those threads had more recent posts by machine shop owners who had found a problem with "too soft" lifters in some well known brands you would ordinarily trust. They were starting to push back against the idea that oil was the root of the rash of cam failures, claiming the problem was the lifters, not the oil. The Ford's problems turned out to be a little more complex than just the one flat lobe, but that is a long story and not really relevant to lifters. By the time I got around to fixing it, more time had passed, and Internet threads were claiming that lifters of the normal expected hardness were unavailable in any brand. Speculation abounded that all of them were coming from the same overseas factory. I had my original cam reground. The cam grinder acknowledged that he had seen hardness problems with overseas made lifters in recent times, but said he could provide better lifters. I sidestepped the issue by inquiring if I could have my original Ford lifters reground. The answer was yes, and the price was slightly higher than new lifters but not enough higher to matter. That turned out fine. So, no. It's not new since Covid, and apparently it is still going on after several years. It is the first time I have heard of an incorrectly ground radius as the root cause. That part is completely new to me.

Maybe time to switch to a different song. ''

Thats a 66, with an LTD grille.

Never underestimate us. There is still time.

You might be right, but it is still a Model A. I don't believe all the firewalls are the same. Model As had some yearly changes, and even more changes if you look at 28-29 vs 30-31. I don't know what version this is, but any of them are going to have the fuel coming through about there. More here: https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/original-ford-model-a-firewall-teardrop.1035118/ EDIT: Late 1931. http://www.ahooga.com/notebook/howto/3/howto3.shtml Looks like a 2 door sedan from what I can see of it, the most common Model A bodystyle.

I don't know about a pop noise. Are you sure it even comes from this part? Is there a way to take that part loose so you can swing it in all directions to check? Adjust a little tighter and check again? Repeat? When it starts to drag, it should drag everywhere equally. I'll bet it doesn't. If you are running it as loose as i think you might be, it's gonna make noise when the sockets bottom out. That, along with sloppy steering is just part of the deal, but only when adjusted too loose because the ball is worn out. When the ball isn't worn out, it shouldn't have enough play in it to make noise. The gap between the back side of those ball sockets and whatever they bump into should be basically zero if the ball is perfectly round. How could there be enough movement to make any noise? Most of my experience with joints like this is decades old. I don't remember where I was getting parts, but probably NAPA or another store here "All Foreign", that is no longer extant. There was a parts man in there who could find ANYTHING, if there was just one more left in a dusty box in a warehouse somewhere, and it didn't need to be foreign. Sometimes joints like those did need internal parts. The sockets the balls ran in were sometimes plastic and they could be all torn up or broken. I've seen broken springs too. Recently I serviced a joint like that on my Pontiac, and the internal parts were all fine once cleaned up. Much to my surprise the ball was OK too. If it had been bad like I expected it to be, my plan was to check with The Filling Station, who sell a replacement ball for Chevrolet, and hope it was the same size. I don't know if it is. If it turned out to be different than Chevrolet, I would have had a real problem. Since it's a Buick I guess I would call Bobs even if they don't have those parts listed. Maybe they know something.

And on the off chance anyone reading this is not already aware, a 40 series engine might look about the same in pictures but in person it is not. Expect a 40 series engine to be several *inches* shorter than a 320. Not interchangeable.

I didn't mean looser than this 3 turn spec, I meant tighter. Yes there are rebuild kits, and yes the parts inside the joint can be worn out, and yes they should be replaced if they are broken or otherwise damaged. That should be obvious by looking at the old parts once you remove and clean them, and anyway they are a red herring at this point. The important thing is the ball. It's the most important wear part, and is permanently attached to a piece that is not normally replaced. On Chevrolets, replacing the ball means destructively removing it, pressing out the remains, and welding a new one in place. Replacements with a nut are also available, if you can trust it. I've heard they aren't a problem but might be a little shy about doing it that way. I don't know what options are offered for Buicks. You might notice modern tie rods run with no slop, and they drag. Slop is bad. One important difference is that the pressure is from the bottom, not the sides. They are tight. When they wear out, they get loose, rattly loose, and there's nothing you can do about it. Most driving is done straight ahead, or close to it, and those cups wear on themselves and on the ball, mostly while straight ahead. If the car is poorly maintained (most of them when they were in daily service), or got some crap in there from the road (all of them because there isn't much to keep it out), the ball gets ground up on the sides. At this point the ball is not round. If you measured it with a micrometer, or just your eyes if it is bad enough, it will be smaller when measured side to side than measured front to back. Driving straight, that spring takes up the wear and prevents rattles if the slop isn't too bad. The spring is more or less an anti-rattle device. If you adjust it too tight at the center on a worn out ball, the larger part of the ball will push out on the cups when you go off center, and the clearance will go below zero and break things. That is the basic problem. Best adjustment is almost zero clearance, or maybe .0005 or .001 or something at the tightest point in the steering, wherever that is. Ball wear can be uneven, and manufacturing may have not got it perfect in the first place. The tightest spot could be about anywhere. You just have to try it, and get as tight as you can with no tight spots. Obviously you cant have tires on the ground. Maybe you can disconnect an end and move the rod in all directions by hand. If, after doing this the straight ahead position is unacceptably loose, the ball needs to be replaced, period. Those little springs are nothing compared to steering forces. They really don't do anything except prevent rattles. The ball sockets have shelves or stops that they bottom out against when you turn. The springs don't even enter into it.

I think 3 to 3-1/2 turns might be too much if it isn't all worn out. I don't know how fine those threads are, but it sounds like way too much. In my opinion, Buick is doing CYA here in the manual. That spring-loadedness is not a desirable thing, it is there to keep you from breaking it. You would want the car up in the air so the steering turns super easy, and the adjustment in a perfect world would be zero slop. The closer you can get to that, the better. On used parts, all the wear is at the center, so don't check it there. Check it everywhere else. Get it as tight as you can get it with NO tight spots or draggy spots. It must not drag anywhere in it's travel. Don't think of this as preloading a spring. Think of it as removing all the slop. The spring loaded socket is there because there are tolerances in manufacturing, and the ball might not be perfectly spherical. After some wear, it definitely wont be perfectly spherical anymore. Some slop at the center is almost unavoidable. If Buick just said remove all the slop, then someone would tighten it up without giving it any thought. They would probably do it at center, the worst possible case, and kill somebody when the no-longer-spherical ball tightens up while turning and non-compressible metal breaks the joint apart. It needs to be checked through the entire travel and not drag anywhere. Anything beyond that is just loose steering. There is one case where these joints are allowed slop. On Fords, Studebakers, and some old Chevy trucks, a joint like this is used to trigger the power steering control valve. If you take all the slop out, the power steering won't work. On those cars as soon as there is any movement, the power steering kicks in and you so don't really ever feel the slop. I have never seen a power steering setup like that on a Buick, and I don't believe they ever offered it.

I read about that "code" thing several years ago. If I recall correctly it allows them to steal your phone number for use in Google Voice. Don't respond to those.

I keep looking at this and I think there are more things you should check before taking the coil/switch apart. With no wires connected to the coil/switch, and the switch turned to "bat" position: 1) Ohms measurement from H to M (coil secondary winding) 2) Ohms measurement from + to R (coil primary winding)

I'm not sure exactly what I am looking at but, I don't think I would expect those to be connected. Look at the wiring diagram in that Eisemann document. Follow the link to the whole document. There is another version there that is the same, but just missing the ratchet. Everything else is the same. The wiring diagram is quite a bit easier to follow with the ratchet contacts out of the way. Apparently it is a high tension magneto but the high voltage still goes through the switch. In magneto mode, high voltage leaves the magneto and enters the switch/coil on terminal HM. A wire from terminal H goes back from the switch/coil to the distributor center contact. As for how to get it apart, Eisemann shows you what's inside. Have a really good look at the unit. Maybe it will be obvious, screws or something. There has to be a way to get it apart. The biggest problem I anticipate is figuring out what value capacitor to get. For a test, you could try hanging a condenser across M and R. If it starts, it confirms we are on the right path. It probably doesn't need to be that close in value to start and run, but it probably does need to be real close when you choose a permanent replacement. If it is wrong it might chew up the points.

Ok, to clarify, you have everything shut off, and the points open, and you shorted R to M temporarily, and then without the short, you touched the ohmeter leads to R and M, right? And the ohmmeter did not "kick" and slowly go to high resistance or open? If that's true, and it was just plain open circuit, your condenser has left the building. I think you have found the problem.

Yes. Definitely polarize, and before you try to start it. There is a possibility of damage, but it depends on too many things I don't know about your car. Of course modern electronics always goes up in smoke when you do that, but old electromechanical car stuff was surprisingly tolerant. Sometimes people drove them around wrong for years. Sometimes the radio even worked. The ammeter goes backwards. Spark is weaker. Old voltage regulators had special plating on the points that was different for positive ground. Running backward would shorten the life, but they would usually work. I am amazed how often it was no big deal. Of course if there were one or two electrical devices that couldn't take it, they would refuse to work and maybe go up in smoke.

Not install a one wire alternator. The idiot light is another wire. One wire alternators are a heavily compromised design intended for tractors where no one would care about their shortcomings. I don't consider internal regulated GM alternators of any sort an upgrade, but if you must, then buy a standard GM 10si or 12si internally regulated alternator instead of the "one wire alternator" and hook the idiot light wire up to the idiot light pin on the new alternator. Done. You'll have to extend the wire probably, it is at the regulator location now if you have an external regulator, and would need to reach the alternator.

No. The only GM positive ground cars I have ever heard of are very old Cadillacs, and maybe some Oaklands(?). I don't recall when Cadillac abandoned positive ground, but it was long before the 1953 change to 12 volts. Buick, Chev, Pontiac, Olds etc. are all negative ground.