Bloo

Yeah, one of those bolts in the picture has already been turned around, see the symmetrical wear pattern? You need new ones. Don't get too upset about the copper in the motor part, just clean it all up and then have a good look after its clean. Starter brushes are copper and thats where it comes from. Look online at a new set of brushes, and compare the length to yours. New ones are flat on the face and have to wear in to get the curve, and that takes some off right away. If yours aren't 2/3 gone, I wouldn't bother. Starter commutators are not undercut, so you don't need to address that (like you would on a generator). You don't have to do anything to the commutator unless it is all torn up. Since you have it all apart I would inspect the bushings real good and probably replace them if they show any wear, or if there is any evidence of the armature dragging.

Any universal aftermarket carb will need to be jetted and recalibrated to match your particular application. Historically, Aftermarket Holleys have come out of the box jetted way too rich so they will run and drive on anything. Gas economy was typically horrible, and a lot of plug fouling followed. Most people don't understand that carburetors are not a universal bolt-on sort of thing, and that some development time and recalibration will need to follow. Can you imagine how many warranty claims they would have if they made a close guess, and on some of the cars they were too lean, backfiring, etc? Especially since almost everyone will buy a carb that is too big thinking it will make more power. I would be shocked if anything has changed. Too rich covers a million sins, but comes at a price. Aftermarket Carters for instance typically came out of the box a whole lot closer to where they needed to be, but they were also a bit rich, especially the "competition series". YMMV (literally).

Ok, I can't say for sure about that exact transmission, and I hope you get better advice, but here are some thoughts If anything I say contradicts the manual, listen to the manual.... Did this fail catastrophically and go "BANG!" or just present itself with a bunch of metal in the oil? Is that case bent? Probably not but it sure looks strange in the picture. Maybe its perspective distortion in the picture. The u-joint is almost certainly lubricated with oil. Greased u-joints generally are full of needle bearings. That u-joint in the picture appears to be bushed. Chevy used joints like that, and ran them in oil. They have to have oil, in fact it is required that you fill the u-joint separately on a Chevy because the oil from the transmission will not flow out fast enough to prevent catastrophic damage in the first few blocks! If Dodge does not specifically say to grease it, assume it runs in oil (it looks like it does in the diagram you posted), and make sure it is wet and will stay oiled before you drive. As for the transmission, just disassemble and clean everything! get it spotless. You have access to a machine shop? Thats great! Change the bearings and/or bushings and check that the shafts run parallel. Inspect everything closely. You can probably tell where all the metal came from. It's missing from something. Those pointy bits on the gears should be pointy. It is pretty normal for them to be all beat up. Thats ok, but worn flattened isn't. The one in your picture looks ok. The shape should be more or less like the roof of a house. Also look at the flat sides of the teeth. The teeth should have the same thickness where they intersect the pointy bits as they do at the back of the gear. If they wear tapered, the transmission will want to pop out of gear. Other than that, replace all loose bushings or bearings. Pay attention to how things get oil, like that u joint. Oil probably gets there by oozing through the rear bearing, but I am not sure. There is going to be some metal in the oil due to clashing gears. Nobody hits it perfect every single time. Someone else will have to advise you on what kind of oil to use. Protecting the teeth on sliding gears as they clash is a completely different problem than oil for the synchromesh on slightly newer cars. Maybe 600W would be appropriate. I would be tempted to try Redline Heavy Shockproof in this, but I am not going to recommend it because I haven't done it. Probably something thick. Change it once in a while.

Thank your lucky stars. No, I don't know, but I had a 61 Ford and both vacuum (with booster pump) and electric were options. That may have been true on the Edsel as well. The electric ones do have an advantage. They might actually work.

I agree completely.

I doubt distributor cam lube is dielectric grease. Maybe it would be OK. Points should usually come with a little capsule of some grease, but I don't think it is anything special.

It is probably in the module.

Well, assuming you had a battery cable on one of the large posts, and the other with it's little copper link going down to the big post on the starter, and you triggered it by the small post, and it went clunk, and it didn't spin, one of 2 things is wrong. 1) defect in the starter motor itself or 2) the copper bolts in the solenoid are shot. It's always those copper bolts. When the solenoid engages the gear (CLUNK!), it knocks back a copper disc against the 2 copper bolts, and thats what turns on the starter motor. Over time, the heads of the bolts burn off and the disc won't reach anymore. When that happens, you either need to replace them or sometimes you can flip them around and use the other edge of the bolt head, if someone didn't already do that trick years ago. You do need a 6 volt compatible charger. If the charger only says 12v on it, it is only 12v, and not compatible.

One more thing, testing with a capacitance (uf) meter will not necessarily tell you if a condenser is bad. Condensers (AKA capacitors) for ignition traditionally used paper for insulation between the foil plates inside. Like the "paper" capacitors in an antique radio, they have to deal with hundreds of volts without insulation breakdown. Failures often don't show up at the low voltages a modern capacitance meter uses for testing.

No condenser used for points even approaches those values. I don't expect that will work well. I can't remember offhand what is typical, but I could believe the 0.2 - 0.3uf mentioned earlier in this thread. You CAN be off, and it will run, but if you are the points will burn up right away with contact damage that looks like a mountain. Metal transfers from one point to another. You can tell whether the capacitance (uf) is too high or too low by which point has the mountain on it. Old service manuals like Motor or Chilton have pictures of this. RPM affects it, so driving habits play a part. If a car runs ok, and there is no metal transfer on the old points, I don't change the condenser.

Lubricated with graphite grease every 10000 miles. as outlined in the shop manual. I have only done it once, but am about to do it again. It has been 2 years. Graphite grease is defined a "No. 2-1/2 cup grease to which has been added 40% to 50% graphite by weight, GM Number 4529-M". Penrite still make an old fashioned graphite grease for leaf springs. It does not meet that specification, but is probably the closest thing available. A "lubroclamp" tool is used to get the grease inside the spring covers, as per the shop manual.

I use graphite grease as original on my Pontiac springs. They have metal gaiters and have probably never been apart. The sort of graphite grease used on leaf springs is literally almost all graphite, and not what is usually called "graphite grease" today. It is not readily available from most sources anymore, as the automakers abandoned the idea of graphite greased springs over 50 years ago. Restoration Supply (of California) has it if you need any. Chistech's idea is much better. If you can get liners (film?) in and still get everything together with the extra thickness, it is a MUCH better solution, probably no one will see it, and you don't need to keep adding graphite.

That shouldn't even work. You just fixed the manifold alignment issue, right? All ports sit flat against the block? I don't recall, but if not, get it faced, and new gaskets. The exhaust manifold will expand with heat and slide on the gaskets a little as it gets bigger. Make sure that your attachment hardware is not going to to restrict that motion, because if it does, the manifold might break or warp. Make sure your wiper system and/or booster pump don't leak vacuum when shut off. If there's any doubt at all, disconnect at the manifold and plug the manifold. Kit the carb if it's not been done recently. The mixture screw on a car that new is only for slow hot idle. The fact that it helps suggests things are seriously out of whack. You just freed up some valves? Did you have the head off? I'm not sure whether you meant you need gaskets for the head, or for the manifolds, but they both need to be perfect, so replace any that are suspect. How is the compression now? Also, if you haven't, check the valve adjustment. I wouldn't tighten any loose ones just yet until it has run a little more, because maybe theres crud on the valve faces. Just adjust ones that are too tight for now. Do the whole job later, after it has run more. Keep at it.. You're close!

Columbo?

I like it! Looks maybe too wide for model T running boards?

I would caution you against going for a specific number. Buick published numbers at least for some cars, and it causes a lot of confusion about what a compression test is and what it isn't. What it is: A pass/fail test for the tunability of the engine. Condition of the compression rings (but not the oil rings) can also be estimated by doing a second compression test with a little oil. What it isnt: A quest to find a specific number. If you try to do that you are going to have a bad time, for a whole bunch of reasons. If the engine fails the test, you follow with a leakdown test. The leakdown test is the REAL test that shows you where compression is leaking, and some very strong clues what is wrong. The absolute number almost never matters and wont match the book anyway. What you're looking for is variation. As for the absolute number, I could only offer the following hints on what to expect: When I was about 12 and first learning about engines, and trying to rebuild single cylinder lawnmower engines for my go-cart, a local lawnmower repairman taught me some things. One of those things was simply "If it is lower than 50 pounds, it won't run". Keep in mind for now that those engines were NORMALLY quite a bit more than 50. Maybe more like 80. Some really old cars (1920s back) run down close to 50 pounds normally maybe even below due to extremely low compression ratios by design. In that case the rule wouldn't apply. Typical 1960s 2-barrel regular gas V8s run about 130 pounds, 70s smoggers less maybe 110. In high-compression high-performance engines the sky is the limit. Over 200 pounds wouldn't be impossible. So, on something like a 1937 model, I would expect it to be in-between a 20s car and a 70s smogger. Maybe 80-110 pounds. I am an old driveability tech, and have never yet seen two guys get the same numbers from the same car. Gauges vary, and methods vary. Some guys open the throttle and some don't. Some take the second puff and some take the last. I do both. Some guys always do a wet test. I often don't bother unless I am looking for something specific. Cranking speed makes a difference. The battery probably gets weaker as you go along. Typical cars usually have variations in the combustion chamber volume. The list goes on. What will be the same among different mechanics is the variation, and the variation is what matters. 25% is typical variation seen on engines in regular use with higher mileage that run just fine. It should be less but it often isn't. Some shop manuals say less. Some say a lot less. Some guy posted the other day that his manual said 5%. 5% is probably a pipe dream. I'll bet the car wouldn't do that brand new. It didn't matter because he had a huge variation, and something wrong. If you find one (or more) cylinders that are way off the others, you have found a problem, and that problem is most likely burned valve(s). Probably exhaust valves. Example1: 90 - 95 - 105 - 110 - 105 - 115 - 90 - 90 - 100 >> nothing wrong, tune it, drive it, check the oil consumption after you put some miles on. Do a wet compression test if you want to estimate the condition of the rings. Don't put too much stock in it because the oil rings could still be stuck or shot. Example2: 100 - 60 - 35 - 100 - 120 - 105 - 105 - 115 >> #2 and #3 are bad. 90% chance these are burned exhaust valves. Do a leakdown test to find where the compression is escaping to. It could be broken or holed pistons, or a head gasket, but probably isn't. DO the leakdown test to confirm. This engine will jump around, stink, and just generally run like hell. No amount of tuning will help. Example3: 65 - 65 - 75 - 80 - 70 - 65 - 65 - 75 >> Lower than expected but even. This COULD indicate jumped cam timing. If that were the case it would be difficult if not impossible to get it to run well enough to even drive. If the engine runs relatively ok, it could be that the compression rings are worn out. A wet compression test would be a clue. The most likely thing is it's just the method, or the calibration of the gauge, and nothing at all is wrong. One last thing, since we are talking about antique cars. If the engine has been sitting around take the results of ANY of these tests with a huge grain of salt. When an engine sits, probably at least 2 valves are up off of their seats, getting rusty, etc. The rings may stick. The cylinderwalls may rust a little. Thats why engines long dormant start to run better after some driving. It could appear you have a serious problem when you don't. Drive it and see.

Thats just not historically accurate. Eisenhower traveled across the country with a convoy of military trucks in 1919 when that was a close to impossible feat. Usable highways became a priority to him. It's not like outside interests were trying to get him to do it. It was him trying to get it done against political resistance, and the resistance of mother nature. The fact that the project finally got underway in the mid 50s is no accident. Eisenhower was elected president in 1953.

Yeah, some people from other areas (particularly southern California) cant deal with the sky being gray almost all time and have to leave. And then there is Seattle's famous rain. The truth about that it that is is more like an intermittent drizzle. The proximity to the water means the temperature is pretty constant, and rarely goes below 40F for long even in the dead of winter. You can walk around in short sleeves year round like I did if you don't mind getting drizzled on a little. Locals don't use umbrellas much, and heavy rain is mostly in wintertime. Snow is rare. When it happens, everyone freaks out and goes home.

And for those unfamiliar with the area that the "low rainfall" part only applies to the part in the shadow of the Olympic mountains, Sequim for instance. That's "skwimm" if anyone was wondering. Most of the peninsula was historically rainforest, and Forks might be the wettest place on earth.

The two things that actually make a difference in headlights are getting full system voltage all the way to the bulb, and a quality lens and reflector (on pre-1940 US cars, re-silver your reflectors!). People usually want to just shove in a brighter bulb, but it often doesn't help and sometimes makes things worse, for a whole bunch of reasons. LEDs show promise, but aren't really there yet for old car headlights (good LED replacements for small bulbs do exist though). On the upside, there is no theoretical reason that LEDs need to be sensitive to the supply voltage like incandescent and halogen bulbs are. The LED itself inside the bulb runs on less than 6 volts. They also draw less current, and that could be a big help on pre-1940 cars. The trouble with LEDs is that that getting them in the correct shape and location to replace a filament is, as of right now (2019), basically impossible. An LED replacement that works well will be something designed from the ground up to fit in the 7" hole, and probably wont look anything like a sealed beam. If really being able to see is the goal, in a 7 inch headlight car, get as much voltage out to the lights as you can (hint: relays). Sealed beams might be crappy, but they are a lot less crappy when they are getting enough voltage. Second, get some European Union accepted ("E-Code") lens-reflectors. The French brands (Cibie, Marchal) have by far the best optics, and use thin lead-crystal lenses. German brands (Hella, Bosch) typically have flat faces, and are made with thicker lenses, out of more ordinary glass. They're not as good, but don't break as easily from rocks as the French ones. In 7" Bosch is a much better choice than Hella, because low beam is cut off a bit too low in the Hella. In other sizes either are good. Even the cheapest available (Autopal, made in India) are way better than sealed beams. Avoid things that were designed to USA regulations back when we were strictly on the Sealed Beam standard. That includes most if not all units that are DOT approved today for CARS (not motorcycles), such as Cibie "Bobi" and Hella "Vision Plus". Those have the same type of beam pattern as a sealed beam, and performance will suffer compared to ANY E-code lights, even the cheapest. Fun fact: E-code lens-reflectors will allow you to see quite a bit further out than sealed beams, while blinding oncoming drivers LESS. This is because their low beam has a sharp cutoff at the top of the beam. This keeps the majority of light down in the grille of the oncoming traffic, and not in the windshield. The sealed beam standard (1939) required a certain amount of light shining up in the air to light up overhead signs. This light went right into the eyes of oncoming traffic. Brightening them up just makes it worse. We stuck with that standard for decades, meanwhile the Europeans were constantly re-engineering headlamps. You might notice that new cars in the US today have a fairly sharp cutoff at the top of the beam, more like an E-code headlight than a sealed beam.

That's not really how it is supposed to work. The synchronizer is a friction device, literally a brake. The issue isn't weight, its that the oil cannot be too slippery or the synchronizer will not be able to stop the gear. Hypoid gear oils are really slippery and do everything in their power to prevent the braking action. Some synchronizers are huge, and have perpendicular grooves machined in them to scrape the oil off of the cone. Those can deal with extra-slippery oil for a while. Maybe not forever. Others may be just barely working when new. Heavier oil can slow gears down quicker, and help with shifting in spite of synchronizers that don't really work. It boils down to timing. Grimy mentioned GL-1. That is close to straight mineral oil, and is likely to provide much better results than typical GL-4 or GL-5 gear oil from the parts store.

If the seats are bad and recessed enough you MIGHT have to replace them. If the seats aren't bad, don't replace them until they are. The fears about unhardened seats are overblown in anything EXCEPT drag racing, dump trucks, towing, speedboats, etc. As Keiser31 and c49er mentioned, they ARE hardened in a 53 Chrysler product. Falling out or coming loose has been a recurring problem in engines with inserts, either factory or aftermarket. The machinist has to really get the job exactly right or it might fail. Why risk it until the seats are shot and you have no other choice? If i had recessed seats, I would look into installing slightly oversize valves to get the valve heads back up where they belong, rather that having inserts installed.

But isn't that exactly when passenger rail service went away in most places? If not, its news to me. I saw 1928 and wondered where you live. Up here in Washington State I think passenger rail service went away when the Great Northern merged with some other railroads. That might have been 1970. I remember riding one of the last Great Northern passenger trains probably in 1968 or 69.

You probably would want to rethink Anacortes if getting to the airport is a priority. Southbound traffic through Seattle via I-5 is bad, all day, every day in recent years. It is unlikely to get any better. There have got to be many ferry rides that would be way easier and faster than a drive on the interstate from Anacortes. Vashon to West Seattle and Bainbridge to Downtown are a couple that come to mind. I love Anacortes, but driving from Anacortes to Sea-Tac on anything close to a regular basis sounds hellish to me. YMMV.

I would be very interested in hearing more about this, and especially if it was in the US (or Canada). Have you located long stretches of highway that are relaxed at those speeds?