Bloo

There is always an advantage if you can keep the cables as short as possible. That goes double for 6 volt. It is all about voltage drop (loss) in the cables. Cables already need to be quite large for 6 volt systems, with 00 gauge being the common recommendation. If you are going to make them longer, make them larger too. Cables for a trunk mounted 6v battery in a front engine car would probably be gigantic.

What you have is what I would expect to see. I don't know why it is only catching one thread.

I have never heard it any other way until today. This guy is one of one. "Manual" vs "Power" has always been about having some sort of servo assist. As I am sure you are aware, Buick (and some others, Studebaker? Pierce?) had power assisted mechanical brakes in the days when most mechanical brakes were still manual. Ford, as I am sure you are also aware, stuck with mechanical brakes way longer than the competition, until 1939 I believe. Back in the day I probably would have said that the 1937 Ford had "juice brakes" if it had indeed been converted to hydraulic brakes from the original mechanical. Power vs Manual is a whole separate discussion, and I suspect it was a pretty uncommon discussion until power brakes went mainstream in the late 50s.

I don't have any books I can get to that cover 1934. I have a Motor and a Chilton that cover 1935 and 1936 respectively, which I believe is very close to the same version of the BB. Both have drawings (different ones) showing the main discharge circuit. Maybe they are not to scale, but they sure look like they are. They show the discharge nozzle at the same physical height as the edge of the fuel bowl, making it appear physically impossible for this to happen, crack or no crack. Not being there to look at it makes it awfully hard to tell. The only area where there appears to be a common wall with the fuel bowl is right above the main jet. It certainly appears that if there were leakage, the gas could bypass the main jet making the mixture too rich, but still should not cause dribbling at idle. Are you sure the gas that is dribbling is coming from the main discharge in the venturi? Could it be coming from somewhere else? If there were a crack in the main passage where it sticks out into the throat on it's way to the venturi, that would dribble gas for sure, but it would dribble out the crack, not the main discharge.

I would say those are pans that go underneath beside the engine, and the oval hole is probably for the exhaust to pass through. I couldn't even guess whether they are for a 37 C.E. or not.

If it is dribbling out the main discharge that REALLY sounds like float or float valve trouble. I'm not that surprised it stalled. How could you possibly know whether the idle jet was set close with the main discharge dribbling like that? If you are sure... well.. It has been way too long since I have been in one of those, but it has to be mixing air somewhere on the way from the bowl to the main discharge tube. Maybe whatever hole lets the air in is plugged and the gas is siphoning? Does it have a bowl vent? Could that be plugged? Or maybe misadjusted if it is the type that moves? A crack or porosity would have to be in a certain location for the gas to get from the bowl into the main discharge, wouldn't it? With it stripped down you should be able to see where the passages go. Any that are not obvious could probably be sussed out by shooting brake clean through the passages (don't get it in your eyes!). Once you know where the crack or porosity has to be, couldn't you fill the stripped down bowl with gas or paint thinner or something, and look for it to seep out of whatever passage has to have the crack or porosity? If I really suspected that, I would be looking for a way to prove the casting is bad. My money is still on the float or float valve., but I guess I'll wait to see what Jon thinks.

The first thing I would do, assuming the engine is not prone to backfiring, is make sure the choke is all the way open and then put on some safety glasses and stare down the throat at hot idle. Can you get it down to slow idle but just too rich? At that point all the fuel the engine gets SHOULD be coming through the idle circuit where you cannot see it. If you see it dribbling out of the main discharge tube, or really anything up where you can see it, you need to investigate why. The most likely reason would be the float bowl running over. The most likely causes for that would be: 1) Float set too high (check float level setting) 2) Sunk float (hole in float, gas inside, dunk float in hot water and look for bubbles.) 3) Bad float valve (needle not sealing on seat, the old ones with a metal tip were horrible for this) 4) Fuel pressure too high (wrong fuel pump or electric fuel pump with too much pressure). I don't recall ever seeing a cracked or porous body causing a problem like that, but it's been a long time since I have worked on one. Anything's possible I guess. @carbking could probably answer that. Good luck and let us know what you find out.

As PhilAndrews already mentioned, the terminals need to be clean, and ESPECIALLY on the outside of the post and the inside of the hole in the terminal, because that is where the current needs to flow through. Don't leave a battery on a charger all the time unless it is a "battery maintainer" or at least has a special battery maintain function. Battery maintainers don't cost too much and are a great thing to have if you are not going to use the car that much.

Many other makes and models put the condenser on the outside of the distributor. There is no reason I can think of for it not to work.

Be sure to seal your new cork. Gas tank sealer is a reasonable option. If you don't seal the cork it will work for a month or 2 and then sink. I know this from experience. There are probably other things you could use (super glue maybe?). I bought pre-sealed corks from Bob's Automobilia. I have no idea whether they would fit a Studebaker. I have rebuilt 1930s GM units but not Studebaker. If I were in your predicament, I would definitely have a go at rebuilding it.

My guess is they don't have any trucks coming this direction empty. I hear all these stories in forums about how great Fastenal shipping is, but I have never been able to arrange it, not once. I have not tried since the pandemic began, so that wasn't a factor. I am in central Washington State, and have an enormous Fastenal store about 10 blocks from my house.

Correct, but I was referring to the original poster's engine as being a 1937 or newer. What I was driving at with the HydraMatic picture is that Oldsmobile 6 cylinder blocks all look nearly alike from 1937 until much later, probably until the end of production. The original poster's engine (in post #10) is an Oldsmobile engine from 1937 or later. It is definitely not older and definitely not a Pontiac.

That is a 1937 or later Olds six of some sort. It has the characteristic bulging look to the water jacket, the core plugs are in the right place, the oil filler tube is in the right place, etc. .

How about pictures? The 1936 Olds engine is very different that the 1937. I believe the 1937 Olds is a whole new engine design, and even it isn't, it looks different. The 1937 has fully enclosed water jackets and the oil filler is in a different spot. The Pontiac six was all new in 1935, and the 1935 (only) did not have fully enclosed water jackets. On 1936-1954 they are fully enclosed. 1935 through 1939 (or so) had an Indian head cast into the side of the block on the left side toward the rear, .

Rusty, I am glad you added to it. Confusion reigns wherever these engines are discussed and it brings some clarity.

That first link is a whole different engine. I usually refer to the engine the OP asked about by the old colloquialism "Wideblock". Although it is just slang, it is the only term I am aware of that refers to ONLY that engine series (277-301-313-318-326). Poly or Polyspherical could be either the Wideblock or the engine(s) in the first link. In retrospect, it appears "A-Engine" is the correct term for the Wideblock (and only the Wideblock). Allpar has it that way, and have even interviewed engineers, so they are undoubtedly right. Chrysler was never clear about that, and common usage of "A Engine" back in the day referred to every V8 design before the B/RB engines (with the distributor and oil pump in the rear), all the way back to and including the first Chrysler Hemi. They all share some common features and even a part or two will interchange. Apparently that's wrong, but 60 plus years of incorrect usage of "A Engine" will not be undone overnight. Threads about Polyspherical Chrysler engines almost always wind up with people discussing both engine types and not realizing it. So to be clear, a Wideblock (or A-Engine if you must), has: 1) Polyspherical heads, canted valves, one rocker shaft per side. 2) A block that has the same bore spacing as all "LA" engines and the "Magnum" engines of the 90s. Sitting on the bench next to an "LA" block, it would be difficult for a novice to distinguish the two. An LA318 or LA340 crankshaft would drop right in. 3) A timing cover, water pump, fuel pump, and harmonic balancer setup that looks almost the same as an "LA" engine and will bolt up. 4) An Intake manifold that includes the water crossover, and closes up the top of the engine, similar to an "LA" engine or a Small block Chevy. (The other type of Polyspherical engines have a pan up top like B/RB engines, early Chrysler Hemis, GM Kettering engines, and Studebakers.) Item 4 is a super easy way to tell which type you are looking at. The Wideblock was the only engine ever introduced by Plymouth Division that was exclusive to them. When Plymouth got it's first V8 in 1955 however, it was not the Wideblock. It was the other type of Polyspherical engine, identical to a Dodge engine, except with smaller displacement. In 1956 the Wideblock came along for Plymouth and only Plymouth, but the Dodge-based polyspherical engine continued alongside it. If you open the hood of a 1956 Plymouth, you might see either a Plymouth Wideblock, or the Dodge-based Polyspherical engine. The Wideblock remained exclusive to Plymouth through 1957 and 1958, while other Chrysler divisions continued to use the other design when a Polyspherical engine was called for. Dual four barrels were optional on the Wideblock 318 in 1957 and 1958 only. Carter WCFB on the 1957s and Carter AFB on the 1958s. In 1958 the completely unrelated B/RB engines were introduced for all divisions, and a 350ci version was added to Plymouth's option list. For 1959, the other Polyspherical design engines were all discontinued, leaving Plymouth's Wideblock as Chrysler's only Polyspherical engine. The 1959 Dodge got a 326ci WIdeblock to replace the discontinued Dodge 325ci Polyspherical engine on the option list. That ended Plymouth's exclusivity on the design. It was the largest displacement Wideblock ever made, but was really nothing that special compared to the others. It was just a Wideblock 318 with an .040 overbore and Hydraulic lifters if I remember correctly. As far as I know the 1959 Dodge 326 is the only Wideblock with hydraulic lifters. From 1960 on, both Plymouth and Dodge had identical Wideblock 318s on the option list. It was the only displacement still made in the US (but not Canada, more on that in a minute). For 1962, the new 727 Torqueflite aluminum-cased automatic transmissions replaced the old cast iron Torqueflite. The crank flanges on Chrysler's engines changed. 1962 up Wideblocks will bolt to all the same transmissions the "LA" engines will. In 1964 the first "LA" engines were introduced, 273ci for use in Valiants and Darts. The block design is nearly identical to the Wideblock, but the head and intake manifold design is completely different. I don't recall when the single 4 barrel option disappeared, but it was gone for sure by 1965. 1966 318 two barrels were the last Wideblocks in US model cars. 1967 US-made 318s are "LA" engines. In Canada there was a 313ci Wideblock. I believe this was because when they started making Wideblocks in Canada, they used a bore size from one of the other-type polyspherical engines instead of 3.91. Thus, 313s are unique to Canada and cars made in Canada for export. A year or two before production ended, Canadian Wideblock engines became 318ci like the US models. The Wideblock 318 was used in Canada through 1967, a year longer than in the US. It is hard to say when production really shut down. They probably kept the line running for a little while to make warranty engines and other replacements. Bristol in the UK was building new cars with Wideblock 318s as late as 1969, but it is unclear if they were getting them from Chrysler or just had a bunch stashed in a warehouse somewhere. Confused yet? .

Any stud or bolt that goes into a water jacket should have sealer on the threads. Traditionally shellac (Indian Head, Permatex #2, etc.) is used. Teflon pipe dope (not tape) for plumbing will also work. Loctite makes something similar, intended for sealing bolts and studs. Regular Loctite threadlocker will also work, although it is an off-label use. Whatever you use, the threads should be clean, chased, and dry. Rust, being porous, can allow seepage around your sealer. I usually use Indian Head.

Best V8 of it's day, hands down. I have no idea how many were made. It was extremely common in Plymouth and Dodge B and C bodies in 1965 and 1966. Runs of performance parts in the past have all been small. Good luck with your project.

Copper head gaskets are trouble. They have their place when nothing else is available, but I like your idea of using an NOS gasket.

Whether it's intended or not, the importance as a reference tool cannot be overstated.

The enemy of urethane foam is moisture. Water causes it to rot, and there is water in the air. It's not a matter of if the foam will fail, but when. Back in the 80s there was a fad for a while where automakers would make a headliner out of foam and fabric, rather than suspending the fabric on traditional bows. Sometimes this was glued to a cardboard shell, sometimes directly to the interior sheet metal. These headliners were notorious for falling down into the face of the driver when the cars weren't very old, and drivers using pins, glue, tape, etc trying to keep the headliner up off of their head. Sometime in the 90s, I was repairing this mess in one of my own cars. I was shopping for foam and glue. I was talking with a foam supplier about what glue I should use. This car had the foam glued directly to the sheet metal, so I couldn't just do it out on the table with my glue sprayer like I would have done if it had a cardboard shell. I needed to work in a full interior with dropcloths and masking, and somehow keep the glue mess under control. That probably meant aerosol cans. I knew from experience 3m Super77 would never hold with the weight of the material pulling down on it, and I was asking if he thought I could get away with using 3m Super90 without pockmarking the fabric. He told me it didn't matter what glue I used because it was just going to fail again. Condensation builds in the headliner and gets the fabric slightly damp, and the foam rots on its surface, turning to powder. The fabric falls down with the glue still attached to it. It makes no difference how good the glue is because the foam is going to turn to powder right underneath the glue. He may have suggested some particular foam for a headliner, but was adamant that from a rot standpoint, it made no difference. They are all urethane, and all subject to rot from moisture. It would fail again, and sooner than later. When I got back to the shop I took a closer look, and that is exactly what had happened. The glue and a powdery residue were still attached to the headliner fabric. I have looked at many others since, and it is always the same. The glue didn't fail, it fell down intact with the headliner fabric. Have you ever seen a old car, perhaps a 1960s or 1970s model, in otherwise fine shape that is getting orange foam dust all over the carpet? The same thing happens in a seat. Condensation gets up underneath the seat and attacks the foam from below. The foam might be still solid up on top where it is protected by the upholstery, but it is slowly rotting underneath and falling out the bottom. By the way, urethane foam burns like gasoline. I wouldn't really want it in an antique. On some cars it is unavoidable, but I wouldn't be in a rush to use if it weren't necessary. .

When I was doing this sort of work (long ago), the only thing I remember reproduction covers being available for were Volkswagen Beetles and 65-66 Mustangs. They were nice, original looking, and cheaper than the labor and materials to make them up from scratch. When there are reproduction covers available, and there are for many cars now, you would be money in the hole to do it any other way, unless of course custom is what you want.

The shop I worked at in the 80s in used an electric knife, of the sort intended for the Thanksgiving turkey. They work great for carving urethane foam into the proper shape for a seat. I don't recall if they work on real foam rubber (pincore). I have never even seen that thing Joe posted, but I'll bet it does a nice job. The local suppliers of foam back then used hot wire cutters on cutting tables to make nice perfect rectangular pieces of foam to ship out. I would guess the reason a shop won't do it is they have no idea how to make a 3d piece that someone could just take home with them that would work properly. I have no idea how to do that. It would be a bunch of trial and error with a pre-made reproduction cover, fitting the foam to the available space, on-off, trying it, etc. If the covers were made from scratch, it would be a bunch of pattern making and shaping at the same time the covers were being made. If you were having them make the covers, or having them install the covers, it might be a different story.

I suspect it is leather! In any event, I would probably use leather. .

A 59 Cadillac has a surprisingly tight turning circle for a car of that size.