Bloo

I didn't say that. In fact I said I would rather be using ethylene glycol. Still, saying that ethylene glycol is the proper tool for the job when the original designers engineered the system around water is silly. Doubly so knowing that ethylene glycol has significantly worse thermal transfer properties when compared to water. It is in fact a different substance with different characteristics that must be taken into account. You will often see me recommending Zerex G-05. That is not because it is the only good option. No doubt there are plenty of others. It is just the first one I found that is 1) resistant to foaming and 2) did not show corrosion problems in testing for solder, brass, and copper on it's datasheet and 3) is available in bulk in concentrate form at chainstores like Oreilly, NAPA, and Autozone all over the US. I read a lot of datasheets when I was trying to solve a foaming problem in a Pontiac shortly before heading out on a roadtrip across several states. Now in Zerex's favor, all their antifreeze products do have datasheets that are relatively complete, even their cheapest products. Some other brands do also, though they do tend to be less complete. Prestone on the other hand had the absolute worst documentation I found. Some of their products, like the one you linked, have no datasheet at all, only a webpage full of marketing babble clearly not written by anyone who had engineered it or tested it. The only document available is an SDS. I guess at least the firemen will have something to go on if someone drinks it. Prestone does have datasheets for some of their products for industrial or truck use, but even in that case they give more space to marketing babble than data, and the data is sparse. Stuff like "Optimizes engine temp, prevents freezing, PLUS protects parts from buildup & corrosion. While ordinary antifreeze+coolant only manages 2/3s the job, Prestone’s Total Protection handles the complete job." and "Includes patented Prestone Cor-Guard® technology, our best advancement in cooling system parts protection that protects against rust, corrosion, scale, buildup and clogging of all cooling system components." carries about as much weight with me as "Ivory - So pure it floats!" and "Lucky Strike means Fine Tobacco!". Now in all fairness the "Prestone All Vehicles" linked is one of the products I tested in my admittedly unscientific foam testing. It performed very well in foam prevention, almost exactly the same as GM DexCool, though GM DexCool would be a much better choice because it has to meet documented standards to be allowed to carry the trademark. Until Prestone owns up to what standards their "all vehicles" product can be expected to meet, they can put anything in the bottle. There is no expectation that it will necessarily have the same characteristics as what I tested. It is just not possible to take them seriously when they do not publish specifications and test data.

Motor Cooling System WATER SYSTEM---(See Illustration No. 9. Page 25) There is a great amount of heat generated by the explosions in the cylinders and by the friction of the moving parts, which necessitates some method for cooling the cylinders, as otherwise the motor will overheat and lose power rapidly. (See "Overheating of Motor," page 51). Water is used for this purpose in the Studebaker "35." The water system, which contains 16 quarts, consists of a radiator, hose connections, water line, pump, and water jackets which are incorporated with the cylinders. The radiator should always be kept full of clean, soft water. ----1913 Studebaker Owners Manual https://autohistorypreservationsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/1913-STUDEBAKER-Owners-Manual-Model-35.pdf

I have a 1913 Studebaker. Several decades ago, when it was still my dad's car, I tried ethylene glycol in it. It was a disaster. This is an open system, with a motometer on the cap and an overflow tube that exits below the radiator. Was it foaming? Maybe. The old ethylene glycol formulas were bad for that. The vaporized ethylene glycol came out of the cap and the overflow and got all over the windshield where it mixed with road dirt and made it impossible to see. I had to hang my head out the side to see where I was going, and that meant breathing a bunch of ethylene glycol. It's pretty bad for you. It makes you cough a lot and sticks around for a few days. It also got on the paint, which it stained. The red car had pink spots. The spots did disappear finally, but it took about 3 years. I would like to be able to run ethylene glycol because it freezes here and suddenly. The Studebaker gets drained after every outing, and it is a major annoyance. I can't leave the water in it because it might be forgotten and freeze. I would never try ethylene glycol again without a lot of preparation. First I would make sure the packing drip at the water pump is very very slow. It did not take much ethylene glycol to foul the windshield. I would make a seal of some kind for the motometer, because I don't think it has one at all. It would need to seal, yet still come loose easy enough that you could get it off without burning yourself when water needs to be added. I would use Zerex G-05 coolant, as I have found it foams less than the old stuff. Finally, I would put a pipe, fairly large, maybe 3/4" inside the frame rail from the front of the car to the back, and dump the overflow into that so that anything that comes out could not possibly get on the windshield. In the mean time, I'll stick with water. I suspect what is being referred to as cutting oil here is milk oil. Not all cutting oil is water soluble. When I used to use milk oil, it wasn't sold that way. It was a container of "rust inhibitor and water pump lubricant" from the parts store. It was obviously milk oil. I doubt they have it anymore. I think the container was about the size of a pop can or a little smaller. @edinmass might know how much milk oil to put in. I think he mentioned using it in another thread.

Cadillac was positive ground for a while. Ford was positive ground back to the model A I believe.

Usually the sensor must match the gauge. In old American cars, GM, Ford, Chrysler, Stewart-Warner aftermarket, Auto-Meter aftermarket, VDO aftermarket, etc. are all different. I have seen aftermarket gauges advertised that can be set to work with many different sensors. I have never used one. That system had a green light and a red light. No gauge.

It is Kurt's car. i recognize it.

They might have called them core plugs. Maybe soft plugs or Welch plugs. "Freeze Plug" is just a bit of slang referring to the fact that they often come out if the engine is allowed to freeze. Some people incorrectly assume it is a form of freeze protection. It is not. The castings usually break anyway. it is just a convenient way to plug holes that were necessary to make the engine castings. I am no help specifically for the 233, but look along the side of the block and head, and on the very back, and under the side cover where the pushrods are. They are made of sheet metal and usually round.

Proceed carefully. Originality is everything in that world. Check out https://thecabe.com/forum/ if you aren't already over there. Great find!

A friend used to have one of these. I don't think it is a dynaflow... is it? I think it is a 2-speed automatic. It was a long time ago, but as I remember it shifted. The transmission is air cooled, tiny, looks like a toy, and in his car gave no trouble ever. I agree with @rocketraider, there is a good chance it just needs maintenance. EDIT: apparently it is called a Dynaflow.

Worth taking back apart? I don't know. You can and should use silicone-based brake grease when assembling that stuff. For what it's worth, I don't believe that is the same thing as silicone dielectric grease, but maybe someone with more chemistry knowledge than I can comment. I have not personally had these troubles with sticking pistons, nor with re-using aluminum pistons that have lost some of their anodization. Maybe I just live a charmed life, but I attribute it to the fact that I always slime these parts up real good with Sil-Glyde just like I was taught in technical school longer ago than I would like to admit. I don't think so. I have never heard of nor had any trouble. Brake cylinder rebuild kits used to come with a little capsule of brake lubricant. It was a little runnier than Sil-Glyde, but I think it was silicone. It is usually not included today, and I think most people default to using brake fluid and have more trouble than they did back then. Most of the lubricant won't be getting in the brake fluid anyway because it is on the piston and the brake fluid shouldn't be getting out there. A little will be on the bore of course, and on the cup, because you should lubricate it all. There is still not very much in with the fluid. No one ever cautioned me against using silicone brake grease in school. Quite the opposite. I was told that sticking was likely if I didn't use it. The incompatibility of DOT3/DOT4/DOT5.1 fluid with DOT5 Silicone is a separate issue in my opinion. Some people have reported a reaction between the two, but I have never personally seen it. In fact, the bottles I have seen of DOT 5 Silicone have all said you could mix it. You should not though. They don't really mix, the silicone floats to the top and you get all of the annoyances of silicone with none of the advantages. You would have to tear all the cylinders apart, thoroughly clean everything and flush the lines out with alcohol to get rid of a mess like that. Bleeding won't do it because the moisture contaminated DOT3 sinks to the bottom of every cylinder and low spot, and bleeders are at the top since they are designed to let air out.

There are other numbers that would very likely work, and the proof is in this thread. 1935 through 1953! I am surprised at that, and doubly surprised that anything before 37 could interchange, but there it is. There's one more part number right there. And from my 1937 parts book, 6 cylinder balancers: 1935-36 499406 1937 499757 So at this point we have 499406, 499757, and 511498 that would probably physically fit. Whats the difference with the earlier ones? I don't know. One gotcha I am aware of is that a balancer earlier than 1949 will not have timing marks. You were supposed to use the marks on the flywheel, and if you are trying to use a timing light instead of doing it the 1930s way with a test light, those flywheel marks are near useless. In my opinion, it would be highly desirable to make the marks on the balancer. Here is a thread where I added front timing marks to a 1936 engine using a front pointer from 1949-54: https://forums.aaca.org/topic/388360-how-to-get-a-top-dead-center-mark-on-a-flathead-engine/ The difference in pointer reach was most likely not a difference in the balancer, or whatever I was guessing in that thread for the cause. I believe the 1936 engine has a thicker timing chain and timing chain cover, so I doubt the difference would affect you with your later engine.

Are you sure? Most cars had a large removable panel in the floor in those days. They almost always took transmissions out from the top to work on them. It probably doesn't get you enough access anyway for the freeze plug, but I'll bet it is there. On my 36 it wasn't enough to really get a good shot at it. I did see the inside of it when I had the head off, and it wasn't bad, so I decided to leave it alone. Nevertheless, mechanics used to sometimes be able to "tip" cup-type freeze plugs in when there was no straight shot. A big hammer and a large spoon-type tire iron can be useful, as can a long socket extension, and a long pry bar. I've done quite a few of them on newer cars where access is partly blocked. That was 40 or so years ago, but the trick was to plan ahead so you could push it in quickly, and then use gasket shellac (Indian head) as a sealer. Indian head is extremely slippery when first applied, but the window of opportunity to take advantage of that is short, maybe a minute or two. It either goes in fast, or you clean it up and start over. After that shellac cures for a day you probably won't have any leaks. Always have an extra freeze plug handy in case you warp one. Another thing you might do is use a rubber freeze plug. It is easier to pry out a rusted out plug with a hole in it when you cant get a straight shot, than it is to put one in. Sometimes tipping a side down helps but don't overdo it. I've never lost the plug inside the water jacket, but it is probably possible. I don't particularly like rubber freeze plugs, but they tighten with a wrench, and that can be done from the side. It would sure beat pulling the engine, and no one can see it back there.

It could be the same but I sort of doubt it. There was a lot of change between 35 and 37. 35 doesn't have a full water jacket. 36 does, but there are 2 different freeze plug setups. With 37 came a significant engine redesign... Do you mean the freeze plug in the very back facing the firewall? That might mean removing the engine if so. My 36 does not have good access to that even with the toe boards out, although yours will be different because you have an all-steel body. The 37 was a whole new car, and the 38 was very similar to 37. I'd take @pont35cpe's advice and remove the floor over the clutch. It is almost certainly removable. That freeze plug is up high on the back of the engine. It is probably higher than the opening, but maybe you can reach it from there.

Anyone got an early 50s parts book? @PONTIAC1953 ? @Pfeil ?

I can't speak to the Model L specifically, but it is common for engines to try to force more water to the back with different or fewer holes in front to prevent boiling. "Center" on this engine could be equivalent to "front" if your water pump(s?) and water outlets are at the center, in other words halfway back. Are they? I too would ask Olsons.

1936 has so many mid year changes I lost count. The parts manual should be at least a year newer or many mismatches will appear. I don't recognize the broken balancer on the left. Is that 1952? Is it even Pontiac? The one on the right has the look of Six and Eight balancers used over most of the run. As you may know, the eight was introduced in 1933, the Six in 1935, and then there was a fairly significant redesign of both engines for 1937, and another for 1949. My 1937 parts book has 1933-36 Eight, 1935-36 SIx, 1937 Eight, and 1937 Six as four different part numbers. I have to say the answer to your question is probably not. Could a 1952 Eight and a 1952 Six have used the same balancer? Maybe. I don't have a book that covers 1952.

The way to check that is to take the plugs out, turn the engine over with a wrench with your finger or some other indicator over #1 plug hole so you know when you are on the compression stroke of #1 for sure and not the exhaust stroke. Stop when you get to TDC according to the timing marks. Check which plug wire the rotor is pointing to. Should be #1.

Seriously, its Japanese. Honda and several of the other Japanese brands were good at this. The early Civic is about the same shape but bigger and those are downright roomy . The AZ600 is about as good as it can be considering the size. Front seat all the way back does make the back seat useless, and it was almost useless in the first place. The only car I ever recall sticking my head out of the sunroof on was an Oldsmobile.

I'm 6'3" and daily drove one in the 80s.

You don't have to rotate radial tires only front to back anymore. In days past when tires were less robust, the radial plies were thought to take a set or "lean" in one direction and the sidewall rubber might be under undue strain from a reversal, potentially causing a failure. I don't know of any tire manufacturer who still requires rotating only front to back. I still do it though. Maybe I lose a little potential tread life by not reversing sides to even it out. Oh well. Your mileage may vary... literally.

If this engine is still in the car, the mess is going to be unbelievable. Works fine though. You won't hurt the block.

One thing to consider when you remove the seals is the type of seal that is in there now. They might(?) be felt or leather. I don't recall when Buick switched to modern rubber lip seals. Some cars of that era (my 36 Pontiac included) have no vent in the differential. This worked because the leather or felt seals would let the pressure created by heat out. Modern lip seals will not and they will leak, maybe even pop out. If the originals are felt/leather and you replace all of them with modern lip seals, and if there is no vent, you will have to add one. Look for a vent.

I would ask on the VCCA forums: https://vcca.org/discussion-forums/

Good idea. Unfortunately little if any parts interchange, but outside of that the design is similar. That 1942 book goes in to much more detail than the earlier ones, making it quite useful sometimes even for Buicks it does not quite match. This is, I think, the rear axle design that ended in 1937 on the 80 series. That said, the most radical change was from spiral bevel gears (torque tube intersects the ring gear at the center) to hypoid gears (torque tube intersects the ring gear at the bottom).

That is correct.