Bloo

Can you reverse just the brush connections, without reversing the position of the field or brushholders? That should do it.

Volts don't mean much as there is no voltage regulation. You can't set voltage anyway. If you disable the third brush the voltage will be lower, but that will be because all charging stops. My advice would be to make sure the thermal switch is not stuck, and move the third brush as far away from the nearest main brush as it will go.

Cutouts are not regulators, and only disconnect when the generator is not charging. If the cutout did open while charging, the smoke would come out of the generator. Third brush generators keep charging at whatever they are set at once the battery is full. The battery must dissipate the unwanted current as heat. About 6-8 Amps is a typical setting on a third brush system, but it depends on the driver and how much the accessories are used. The way the manual is worded is confusing. The currents listed sound like bench test currents, and third brush generators usually have such a test current listed in the manual, but this is to prove a generator good or bad, not to set one for everyday driving. I'd try setting it to 6 amps after the thermal switch opens, and see how it goes. I fear we are getting off on a tangent though, @raydurr's original post said moving the third brush did not help. I'm not sure how that is happening. I believe the third brush is on the positive side in this generator (but I don't have the book!). Moving the third brush as far away from the closest main brush as it will go should make the current too low. If that is not possible, then either the generator has to come off, or we need to figure out if the generator problem (a short?) can be cleared with the generator still on the car.

As you may know, these systems are completely unregulated other than current (Amps), and current is controlled by the third brush. Overcharging (and undercharging) are just part of the game. The third brush has to be set fairly low because there is nothing to turn the charging rate down once the battery is full. The battery must dissipate the extra charge as heat. It also has to be pretty low so the generator wont overheat. I don't believe any of them were fan cooled yet in 1929. I believe if you do either of those things it will disable the generator completely. It should. If it doesn't it probably indicates deeper problems. I'm going to guess this is a Delco generator. If so, I don't have a manual that old in front of me, but here's how I think it works. Power for the field (the winding in the frame) comes from the third brush. At the other end of the winding there is resistor between the end of the winding and ground, and a thermal switch that normally shorts that end of the winding to ground, bypassing the resistor. In normal operation it charges to whatever current the third brush is set to. If the generator starts to overheat because the battery is full, or because the generator just isn't getting cooled enough, the thermal switch opens, putting the resistor in series with the field and turning the charging rate down. This probably happens a lot. It is a bit of a kludge, but it allows you to set the third brush a little higher than you ordinarily could, and that is a good thing. If you can't get the current (Amps) down to a normal level with the third brush adjustment, I think that indicates a problem in the generator, and you would probably have to take it off if you cant troubleshoot it from the outside. Something must be shorted. Speaking of the resistor, I have seen them blown to smithereens, probably from running with the battery disconnected. Never do that with a third brush generator. It can burn out the field coil, and fairly quickly. On the Delcos I have seen with bad resistors the field coil was fine so apparently that resistor gave its life to save the field coil.

Chevrolet speedo gears weren't interchangeable for different gear ratios in that period, and were sold as a set (worm and pinion). Don't neglect to change both, unless you are dead sure the worm you have on the u-joint matches the pinion you are putting in. I second the recommendation for the VCCA forums and the Stovebolt forums. Good luck.

The whole car was intended to be an Edsel, but Ford pulled the plug on Edsel. I like the 60-61 Comets.

Endplay in your steering box?

Yeah, there's definitely air in that. Any 1996 Ford runs at 14.7:1 at both idle and cruise once warmed up because it runs in closed loop on a conventional oxygen sensor. Power mixture for hard acceleration will be richer, and the fuel may shut off completely when decelerating until the engine gets close to idle speed. Also, any sensor needs to go before the catalytic converter to deliver useful information.

Bump steer occurs when the tie rods are the wrong length or something is bent or both. That might happen if a steering wheel were off center, for example due to a splined steering wheel installed on the wrong spline, and to center it a mechanic simply adjusted the tie rods in such a way that they did not come out exactly the same length, as they must on most cars. I am not sure what this would have to do with a noise. Also, this unequal length steering arrangement on this car looks at though it would naturally have some bump steer by design, not a good thing. It might look considerably better on the ground though with the wheels pointed straight ahead. I think bump steer is a red herring here. If the steering box is sloppy, you will need to adjust. Don't try just one adjustment. Do the whole procedure, whatever the shop manual says, in the order it says to do it. Anything else is the road to madness, and also could damage something. At the very end of the procedure the steering box should be tightest at a definite spot right at the center of the steering range. If it is not like that, and the tightest spot is somewhere else, it indicates abnormal steering box wear, and you must loosen the gear mesh adjustment (not the bearing preload!) just barely enough that the steering box does not bind anywhere. I think in that stack of parts, the spring stop "G" at the right is in backwards compared to the picture in the manual. I also think it makes no difference at all. Now, what about that little round piece at the far left of the picture? Does it have a solid shelf inside the tube to bottom out on? That would be "M" in the picture. It needs to bottom out solidly. In fact, the whole stack should be able to bottom out and tighten up on the balls (but don't leave it like that!). The springs are relatively unimportant, their most important purpose (when the balls aren't worn out) is to hold the stops "G" straight. Is this capable of tightening up? EDIT: Maybe also have a good look at how your swaybar (anti-roll bar) attaches. A little bit of slop there can make a whole bunch of noise.

I believe the K-H wheels were standard on X-100 and optional on all Marauders. Do you mean there were some 1970 X-100s without them? It seems in retrospect there was little difference between an X-100 and a standard Marauder. As near as I can tell, X-100 got you the top of the line engine (429-4v) the K-H wheels, and fender skirts(?) as standard equipment. Those things seem to have all been optional on the standard Marauder. X-100 didn't even automatically get you bucket seats and a console, though some have it. I have seen so many different interiors in these cars, I can't make any sense of it. Why would all that exist for a low production car? Most if not all of the oddballs I have seen have been X-100s, but it seems most surviving examples are X-100s, so maybe that detail doesn't mean anything. I'm not surprised to see hubcaps. They could easily be original on a standard Marauder. In fact, I think it is more likely.

Looking at that photo, that elbow is pipe thread to pipe thread. You mentioned a metal line, so the line is probably double flare. Is it? If so, you could screw a straight double-flare-to-pipe fitting into that elbow, and it would both add some length and allow the metal line to connect properly. Maybe it would be enough length? If the line is indeed double flare, it won't connect without adding a fitting. Anyhow, hope you can find the original type part you are looking for. Good luck.

Yes, That should happen. I have heard of cases where it didn't, but I don't completely understand why. In most cases, the transformer will be needed.

I've never heard of it. A vacuum tube radio draws a lot of current, so the inverter would have to be quite large, and probably expensive. Also inverters make a bunch of radio noise. Back in the dark ages when this sort of thing was common, it was done by 1) changing the tubes to 12V versions, usually these exist but when they don't, socket rewiring might have been necessary on one or two tubes, and 2) changing the vibrator to a 12V one, and 3) usually changing the vibrator transformer to a 12V one, but in some cases this was not necessary, and 4) making sure there are no polarity sensitive components are still connected directly to the 6V feed. There are usually not, but it needs to be checked. The basic technology of a vibrator power supply and DC powered tube heaters works on either polarity.

Are you hiring? 🤪

I think you would have to reverse either the field connections or the brush connections inside the motor but not both. Are you sure the airflow is wrong? No original motor to try?

These Pontiac engines do have a water distribution tube inside the block that can rust out if it is made of steel, and it usually is. While checking things with a laser thermometer, the difference in temperature between the front and the back of the block can be a clue about the condition of the water tube.

The Nash is a 40. I like it!

Have you had any success buying stuff on that website? I suspect shenanigans.

They aren't all horrible. The bathtub Nash's column shifter is really nice and refined, probably the best I have encountered. Most of the truly awful three-on-the-tree setups I can recall driving were in GM or Chrysler vehicles where the shift linkage wore out long before the rest of the car.

As far as I know that part never existed. When power steering came along (1953) I am pretty sure Chevrolet had already abandoned the wide belts. Even if what you need exists, it is going to be like rocking horse poo to find. I'd take @68LTD's advice.

I have a guess. To understand it, pretend for a moment it is a Buick with automatic starting (gas pedal start). The connection at the back of the starter don't go directly to the solenoid. They are a relay coil. The relay triggers the solenoid. To engage the starter, you must provide power to one terminal and ground to the other. On a Buick, power is provided to one terminal by the vacuum switch and the throttle switch, in series. The throttle has to be depressed AND there has to be no vacuum for the starter to come on. I imagine you are familiar with all of this. But, what if you are going up a steep hill with the throttle to the floor? Your foot is on the throttle and there is no vacuum. The starter might engage. Buick solved this in the mid 30s by adding an extra contact to the voltage regulator labeled "GRD" that is only grounded when the system is not charging. If you are barreling up a hill the generator should be charging, and the cutout engaged. The "GRD" terminal is disconnected from ground inside the regulator, and there is no ground for the second starter relay terminal. The starter can't accidentally engage. Around 1939, those special regulators were no longer a thing, and Buick started connecting the wire that had been connected to the "GRD" terminal to the "GEN" terminal. When the generator is not charging, and the cutout is not engaged, there is a fairly low resistance path from the "GEN" terminal to ground through the armature windings and the brushes. The starter relay has a ground and the starter can work. Once the generator starts charging, the "GEN" terminal is at charging voltage, and there is no longer a ground for the starter relay. I don't know why they would have bothered running the second starter relay terminal to the regulator on the Cadillac if they were using a starter button to provide voltage to the starter relay. It would prevent you from pushing the button and grinding the starter on an already running engine if you were underway, but if the car was slow idling, and the generator was not charging, you still could grind it if you hit the button accidentally. It seems like slow idle would be the most likely time for someone to hit the button, not realizing the engine is already running.

I think so but I am not sure. I see evidence of a respray for sure. Maybe the original color though? No pics of the door jambs or trunk. They were trying to make these look sporty, and really lost the step by putting the Marquis nose on them when the Monterey probably would have fit. The black tail panel is a common factory option. I've see it mostly on 69s, but was probably also available on the nearly identical 70. Any clock delete in a car that would have had a Borg clock is a blessing. I have heard of three-on-the-tree in these, but have never seen one before. I would be more interested in my 70 if it had the 3 speed. Manual brakes on this one too. I wonder if they are discs? Probably not I suppose, but it would make for an interesting car. My 70 has discs, and the booster is a little much.

Stoichometric is 14.7:1 by weight. That is a good place to run for lightly loaded cruising. Few if any cars are going to do that in 1932. No doubt it was built richer. You can run even leaner than 14.7:1, and get better gas mileage, but there is danger of burning a valve or piston if you go too far. Fuel distribution is not always good in old cars, and of course the leanest cylinder is the one that burns up. In more modern things it was common to go leaner than 14.7:1 at part throttle cruise until oxygen sensors came along. Early oxygen sensors work best right at stoichometric, and cars run very well there. Under acceleration or load it needs to be quite a bit richer than 14.7:1, at the very least 12.5:1. Probably a lot richer on a car that old. Maybe 10:1 or more but that's pushing it. Idle mixture works well around 14.7:1 too, but was almost always run much richer back then. For one thing, there was vacuum wiper leakage to cover up. Fastest idle mixture will prove to be about 12.5:1. If a car is old enough to *not* have an enrichment circuit or some sort of variable enrichment in the carburetor, it must run a "power mixture" of 12.5:1 or richer at all times, as if it were accelerating. The engine may not be too happy about that, but I believe it was the case on Model T's and many other cars of that era. Model A's too, but the Model A had a control that allowed the driver to lean out the mixture from the driver's seat when he wanted to, so that wasn't so bad. I don't necessarily think you can trust a gauge like that to be very accurate, but I can't be sure. I'd like to compare one to the results with a 4 or 5 gas machine. Those "air/fuel gauges" got popular a few years ago, but the wideband sensors were expensive and failing a lot at that time, so I didn't buy one. I'm still curious how well they work. Decades ago there were indicators that used simple narrowband sensors. Those worked better and more repeatably than they had a right to, but there were limitations that a wideband sensor could potentially solve. If you just shoved the sensor up the tailpipe, you are probably getting extra oxygen. Gas analyzers that simply have a hose shoved in a tailpipe always read a little higher than theoretical on oxygen. Some of it is due to reversion I suppose, small leaks in the exhaust probably also contribute. There is a lot of oxygen around. It gets in whether you like it or not. The closer to the back you are, the more there is. I suspect that gauge works on oxygen, and if it was just shoved in a tailpipe it probably got more oxygen than it thought it did.

It depends. The basic technology (6 volt tube filaments and vibrators) are not polarity sensitive. Many radios will work fine backwards. That is not a guarantee that all will.

This^^ Better yet, lube it with Sil-Glyde. That goes double for wheel cylinders.