Bloo

Well as I understand it, 600w is steam cylinder oil, and in the early days of the car was a thick oil that was readily available and OK for lubricating gears. "600w" did not refer to the viscosity, and may have been the flash point of the oil in Fahrenheit (or not). It also might not have been primarily petroleum oil. Today 600w is a trademark of Mobil oil, who sell 4 different viscosities of steam cylinder oil, two of them under the "600w" trademark. In the mid 30s SAE 160 started to be recommended in cars, including designs that had recommended 600w a year or two before. I suspect the difference was that SAE 160 was petroleum and intended mainly for gears. I cant prove it. SAE numbers for viscosity are not exact viscosities, but a range. Since SAE 160 is no longer a standard, it could be pretty hard to nail down, because no data seems to be available, and because any SAE standard now would be a different range, meaning some of them might hit the 160 range (whatever it was) and some might not. Current standards are SAE 140 and SAE 250. IIRC someone on VCCA researched this and claims old SAE 160 oil falls a lot closer to SAE 250 than SAE 140. He identified an oil, Lubriplate spo-277 I think it was, that he claims is equivalent to SAE 160, and works better in early Chevy Synchromesh transmissions than current 600w or SAE 140. Some other members were skeptical. I doubt you have synchromesh. It would be thicker than the SAE 140 for sure. Probably not as thick as 600w. YMMV.

Blob light?

1959 Pontiac

I had a green 51 Statesman. You could have a lot of fun in that. The engine is a slightly enlarged version of the "Nash 600" made from the late 30s until 1949. I think it is 151ci. 600 was the number of miles it could go on a tank. 30MPG highway! Yes, really. It had overdrive, and that made it a completely usable car with that tiny motor. I strongly recommend getting one with overdrive. The speed limit was 55 then, but I think you could probably do ok even today. I drove mine for 2 or 3 years, a lot of it in winter (because I also had a convertible at the time). This was in the late 80s. They were not a "cool" car in the 50s, so didn't get much respect from the hot rod crowd, but anyone who had actually owned one loved it. EVERYBODY had a Nash story. If you drive one of these, someone will walk up to you and tell you a Nash story literally every time you go to the store. I got it from the original owner, and I thought that was pretty unusual for a car that old. A week later I met a 51 Ambassador owner. He was also the second owner. It turns out that isn't unusual at all. These cars tend to stay in the same family for decades, and once you've had one you will know why. It was a great winter car. It always started easy. It went like a tractor in the snow. It had a "weather eye" heater, with a heater core that looked like the radiator for a small car, and 3 fans. The heater pulled fresh air, and it could still cook you out. That tiny engine? Silent. Nash balanced every one of them. If it was idling you could not hear it run.

The local driveshaft guru where I live swears by the upper-line of Neapco u-joints. They are non-greasable, and according to him last far longer than the greasable equivalents. Not sure if there's one to fit your Buick, but it might be worth looking into if you are concerned about not being able to grease it.

What? Overdrives? Grease? 1918?!!!! Hate to be this contrary, but no, no, and no. I get that the OP did not post a make model, and year, but April Fools Day is over, and this is getting ridiculous. The pictures show a Buick rearend, probably with hypoid gears, probably from the late 30s or the 40s. The bolts with a locknut hold the front pinion bearing in. They are torqued, locknutted and sealed with sealer when the rear axle is assembled. They should not be screwed with ever, unless one is tearing down the axle completely, and removing or replacing the bearing. The bearing is oiled by the rear axle oil.

Don't remove that. It holds the pinion bearing in. Taking the lower pan bolt(s) out should drain it. Remove the pan to clean out inside. Pay attention to the location of the fill plug on the pan. Someone in here probably knows how far below the hole to fill. If not, get the capacity from the service manual, and put that much in (or a tiny bit less). Many older cars did not fill all the way level with the fill plug like newer ones.

To you?

^^This There may have been a factory one available. I saw one on an "L" series I thought was factory. It was very similar to the front one, maybe even the same. It had a bit of curve to it, and of course the back of the box is pretty straight. It looked a bit out of place.

I agree with warming it up thoroughly. That has to be done with driving. In my experience shop based methods like cardboard in the radiator, idling in the shop for long periods, etc. do not heat soak the engine in the same way as driving does, and for something like valve adjustment it could easily matter.

Regarding idle speed and disconnecting the vacuum: On a car that uses ported vacuum, and I think this does, there SHOULD be no need to disconnect the line, because there should be no vacuum. I, and many other mechanics always disconnect it just in case (unless the manual states to set the timing with it hooked up. It is not common to see). The service manual will probably tell you what RPM the centrifugal advance starts to move. Pay attention because they might specify distributor rpm, and if they do, double it. With the engine idling slow, and using a timing light, slowly turn up the screw and see what RPM the advance starts at. You should be able to turn it up a little without movement, but not that much over idle spec. In normal operation, it should not be idling "on the curve", in other words a slight increase in idle speed should not make the timing move. The idle will be quite unstable if it is idling on the curve. Ideally, for good throttle response, you probably want the curve to start only a few hundred RPM above normal idle. 50 or 100 RPM would be nice, but most factory jobs don't put it quite that close. Close is good, but It matters a little less when you have a manual transmission, and also matters a little less when you have vacuum advance. Comparing the distributor specs to the idle speed spec in the service manual will show you what Buick did. Whatever you do, don't idle on the curve. Never ever ever. It is the road to madness.

When I have a valve adjustment that puts up a fight, I double check with a dial indicator. On an OHV motor, I put it right out at the valvestem end of the rocker. Some engines have wear on the tips of the rockers in the shape of the valvestem end. That "fools" the feeler gauge. They could be looser than you think they are. OHV engines with solids do make a bunch of noise, it is unavoidable, but if you get them all exactly the same is is more of a hash sound than a knocking lifter sound. .015 is less than many OHV engines use. It should be reasonably quiet. I can't imagine how loosening them up at this point could make them quieter. I would stick with Buick's recommendation for the setting.

I agree with Grimy. Soak it in MEK for a week. It might need more cleaning afterward, but after you take it out of the MEK and let it dry, you will probably find that all that buildup of crud has turned to dry power that will crumble and wipe off with a shop rag.

Its like this Lisle, but might really be Blue Point or Snap On. It goes in the end of a plug wire, and you ground the clamp, and dial out until the spark wont jump anymore. It gives you the approximate available voltage in kilovolts.

Thanks!

What brand/model is that timing light? Does it have dialback?

I do tests like that occasionally using my distributor machine, an old distributor, a battery, and my variable spark gap. Crap laying everywhere. It must be nice to have all of that in one box. I like it.

I agree with you, and would like to own the tool, however I stick by the assertion that anything that goes on an air chisel lacks finesse, and on something important I probably wouldn't pull this tool out first. It does look easier to use than an impact screwdriver. That bleeder tool looks interesting as well.

This tool has the right idea, but doesn't look like it would have the finesse needed if you really needed the bolt not to break. It would be far better than just pulling with a wrench though. Rust is brittle, shock waves break it. Soak in penetrating oil for a few days, reapplying at least once a day. Kroil is good, but Mopar Rust Penetrant (heat riser solvent) is better. Heat cycling is good if you can do it (for instance exhaust bolts on a car that still runs), Hammering on the head of the bolt while putting a little pull with a wrench will help fracture rust. Don't pull too hard, and don't use a huge hammer either. Quick, sharp high pitched raps are what you want. You could also try pulling in the tightening direction, but not too hard. If it starts to move a little, spray more penetrating oil on and quit for a while. It is easy to fool yourself when the head of the bolt or the shank finally comes loose, but the threads have not. If you keep twisting you will break it.

The one on the firewall is the voltage regulator used on post-1970 Mopars. It matches to a Mopar squareback alternator, or a 1970 roundback. The key is the alternator must have 2 insulated brushes to work with that regulator. The second is, as mentioned, a vacuum valve, with a 3rd port for an air bleed. I recognize it, and have seen a gazillion of them, but I can't remember what it is used for. With more info about which motor you have and what it came out of, I might be able to guess... or not. I sure am drawing a blank right now. Possibly it operated a canister purge valve or a vacuum operated heat riser? Maybe something to do with timing? How many hose connections are on the distributor?

Yes, the first is a magneto winding tester, and the second is a condenser tester.

@Carbking might know. I don't recall exactly what year the Rochester showed up, but it wouldn't surprise me too much if its original. Pretty sure some 53 Chevys had it.

I worked in a Texaco station that would be a ringer for that one if the floorplan were reversed (office on the other end). It was the 1980s and the end of an era. Washington had been full of c-stores for a while at that time and had self service gas since the early 70s. We were definitely an anachronism. We still had full service on one island, and were operating more or less just like 1955, the year it opened. I am glad I got to experience it the way it was. I remember that bell very well.... I'm still pretty good with a squeegee too. Here is a Picture taken in the office in the mid 60s.

Through 1959 in passenger cars (and probably at least the mid 70s for industrial use).

If it is going to just climb and boil, and the lower end really IS boiling hot, I think you have a stuck thermostat. Also, if there is no tiny hole or check valve in the thermostat, drill a tiny hole. It helps immensely getting rid of air bubbles. FWIW I have seen an original bellows thermostat from a late 30s Buick. It had the hole. I would leave the pantyhose filter in, or redo it. I don't believe you would get air there without seeing seepage. Is this a pressurized system? If so, you should see leakage for sure. Good question, but it could be, and it wouldn't surprise me. The hottest spots are the back side of the combustion chamber, and especially the exhaust valve seat. That is all up high. For what it's worth, a fairly small air bubble in a more modern car will cause the cooling system to seem to not work at all.