Bloo

They are durable! I am not arguing against using them, however I won't use them on headlights anymore because they are resistive, and a tiny bit of voltage makes a difference you can see in a headlight. In the 60s I firmly believe that the engineers made the right choice. At that time they would have been stuck with multiple glass fuses (which are lousy) and would have had to use multiple relays (which were lousy then) to prevent the whole front of the car going dark and staying dark. If you replace any corroded/resistive switches in one of those systems, and chase out any other stray resistance by replacing any loose spade lugs, soldering any questionable crimps, etc., it absolutely can work as well as it did new. For a restored car it probably is the right choice. But, yes, things could have been better with bigger wire. For brightest lights I like ATO fuses, and enough separate circuits that the front cannot go dark. That would be an absolute minimum of 2 ATO fuses, 4 good quality relays, and feed point as close to the alternator as I can get it. Imagine this for a moment: One fuse per side of the car. One relay for each low beam. One relay for each high beam (or each pair of high beams on a 4 headlight car). Blown fuse? One side goes out. Bad relay? One low beam, or one pair of high beams goes out. Either way, it is no worse than a burned out bulb. On a big 4-headlight American car where I was not concerned about weight or bulk, I might make it more elaborate just to reduce load on the relays and the fuses. The only real possibility for the whole mess to go out, assuming I am tripping the relays using the original headlight wiring, is if the factory circuit breaker trips. There is no significant load on it anymore. Remember with the stock setup the whole front WILL go dark if the breaker trips. Yes, it will try to come back on, but whatever short or overload tripped it will still be there. It may go right back off. A clued-in driver might hit the dimmer switch, and that might take the short or overload out of the circuit and make the headlights stay on.... or not.

Here is an old gas station (built 1955) that still stands in Wenatchee, WA. It is much closer to it's original appearance now than it was when I worked there long ago.

https://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/383/388_Chevy_stroker The year may not matter too much. The things to pay attention to on the block are the displacement, whether it is four bolt main or not, whether it is split seal or not, whether it has a factory roller cam, dipstick location (if you care), and whether it takes thick or thin end seals on the oil pan. Sometime in the 80s the heads changed so the valve covers have bolts through the top instead of around the edge. This takes a different valve cover and gasket. Also, IIRC when "Vortec" heads came along I think a different intake manifold design was needed. The combustion chamber size in cc, along with the bore and stroke of the engine determine what your compression ratio will be. The valve sizes are also important. 2.02" intake valves are usually used in larger displacement engines.

Small block Chevys aren't really my thing, but as I recall the big change on a later 80s block is a "real" rear main seal rather than a split one. That requires a different crankshaft. I think the change occurred in 1985-86. I wouldn't get hung up about the split seal. Modern seals that actually work are available for the split seal engines. Your stroker crank will be available for either kind of block.

You can get literally anything you want for a 1970s 350.

If you can't find the correct one, a Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth ballast resistor will substitute for most other ballast resistors in a pinch. Look for 1972 or older US & Canada built models (probably all the way back to the mid 50s). Unlike GM, Chrysler used them on everything. That makes it a really common part.

Hi. Biturbo owner and former Maserati/Alfa mechanic here. IMHO there is no practical way the Biturbo engine is going to fit in a TC. It is a 90 degree V6, and it is WIDE. Since the turbos are right under the heads, the engine is not just wide at the top, but all the way down. I'm not sure what you would find that much nicer about a TC with a Biturbo engine (if it were possible) than a Biturbo. To me, the body and interior parts of the TC look an awful lot like Maserati stuff of the same period (not interchangeable, but similar). It isn't surprising since IIRC the TC bodies came from Maserati. If it is a Maserati V6 you want, and assuming you are in the USA, I suggest looking for an 89 Biturbo Spyder with a 5 speed. Don't buy one older than 1987 no matter what. Keep in mind that there is quite a bit more maintenance to be done on the Maserati V6 engine. If it were me, I would keep the Chrysler turbo drivetrain in the TC. A whole lot of development and hot rodding has taken place since the Chrysler 2.2 turbo was introduced. IMHO you would be crazy not to take advantage of that knowledge if you want to build a really fast TC.

Yeah, the Maxwell gag was not intended to go on for decades like it did. Jack didn't own a Maxwell in the beginning, and probably not until much later because as J. H. Boland pointed out, he posed with many Maxwells over the years. There was a scene in some movie where he appeared in a residential street scene with a late Maxwell touring, very similar to the one in this thread. I think it was dark blue. There is also this clip:

Yes. Str8-8-Dave pretty much nailed it. It bites in when you tighten it, no tool required. The fittings will work with steel tubing (bundyflex) even though the current fitting manufacturer does not recommend it, but it takes a lot of pressure to make the flare bite into the tubing. Once the sleeve nut has bit, it stays with the piece of tubing no matter how many times you disconnect it.

You're probably right. I was simply saying that whatever piece of wire that you add from the RIviera's wiring to the new relay block wouldn't be protected by fuses in the new relay block. The RIviera's own wiring I hadn't really touched on, but you and KongaMan bring up good points. If it were practical to do so, I would run the feed wire (or wires) all the way back to the alternator post and fuselink it (or them) there. I have done that to other cars, but not Rivieras.. Current will flow from the highest voltage point in the system, and that is the alternator post when the car is running. It is desirable not only because the voltage is a little higher, but also because it takes all the headlight load off of the car's charging system wiring whenever the car is running. That said, I don't know if it is mechanically practical to do that on a first generation Riviera.

I agree with all of that.

The simple answer is that the fuse to protect the large wire feeding the relay block cannot be in the relay block, it needs to be at the source or it won't protect the wire. With the other wires fused at the block, a fuselink (and a bigger wire) on the source would make the most sense. The fuselink would have very little internal resistance, and due to it's slow-blow nature, would cause the a fuse to blow first in the event of a short on the fused high or fused low circuit. A wire of sufficient size and an ATO or Mega-Fuse would be ok, too. It is important to plan things so an individual fuse in the block blows first, otherwise you have introduced a single point of failure that could cause the whole front of the car to go dark. Of course if the big feed wire shorted, it would still blow the fuselink (or fuse) on the big wire and make the front go dark, but thats better than burning the car down. On the other hand, if you build your own stuff with individual relays and fuses, more failsafe possibilities open up. If it were me, I would, at a minimum run separate wires for the two relays and put the 2 fuses back at the source. If I'm not limited to two relays, the failsafe possibilities get even better... One other thing when choosing a connection point, the closer to the alternator you can get, the better.

They picked reliability over brightness. Today we don't have to. GM started using the breaker on the headlight switch in 1937 (I think). Some 1936 models went through extreme machinations to put one headlight bulb on a separate fuse so that a fuse failure wouldn't make the whole front end of the car go dark. Once they went to the breaker in 1937, a trip would make the front of the car dark, but at least it would try to come back on, and soon. You could change from high to low and maybe it would stay on. As recently as the early 1980s, most relays weren't really reliable enough for headlights. I know this from experience. Not only did they not last very long, but many brands would not function properly in cold weather (-20F for example). For instance, you would beam down, and the low beams would come on, but the high beams would stay on too because the relay froze. Get to your destination and shut off the headlights? High beams still on (for example). This is probably why there are not headlight relays in older American cars, except in very special situations. Headlight brightness falls off really fast with low voltage. 0.2v is a difference you can see. The typical old system runs through a thermal circuit breaker (with a piece of resistance wire in it), a set of points for the breaker, another set of points to turn the lights on, a third set of points at the dimmer switch, some connectors, and a bunch of wire to run from under the hood, into the dash, down to the floor, and then back out to the very front of the car. The wire used is lossy too because it is just barely big enough. If the owner buys new bulbs, they are higher wattage than the originals, making the voltage drop even worse than when the car was new. The losses stack up. This setup is usually a whole volt under alternator voltage even when it isn't broken. It is reliable but dim. Today everybody complains that it's dim. Typically the reason someone adds relays is that they don't want it dim anymore. Reliability of relays, even cheap ones these days is pretty good. You don't give up much by using them. If you plan it right and use enough relays and fuses, you can even insure that the front wont go dark if a fuse or relay fails. A thermal circuit breaker has a set of points and a resistor reducing the voltage. An ATO fuse has neither.

Auto reset (thermal) breakers are a poor choice for headlights. I made that mistake on my first headlight harness decades ago. Circuit breakers are resistive, they have to be to generate the heat to trip on overload. If you use fuses instead, your headlights will be brighter.

Just one little nit to pick, don't ask for double flare, or you might get double flare. I am still at this point unsure what the standard name is, or if there is one (double compression maybe?). Double flare is a different fitting and will not work with the fittings in this thread.

What is a built in flasher? That headlight looks like a sealed beam plug? Or maybe an H4? Start with the pinout for the bulbs you actually have, whatever they are. On the 3-pin plug, connect the wire for "negative" or "common" to the (-) of a 6v battery. Connect one of the other wires to (+). Either High or Low should light up. The other wire should light the other. Both use the same (-) wire. When installing, run the ground wire all the way back to the car body if you can, instead of forcing the headlight to ground through the headlight mounting bolt.

What kind of bulbs are in the sockets right now?

Most likely trying to make a spam account by making some real looking posts. Or maybe just trying to sneak a spam link in. The mods are wise to this sort of crap, and the spammers get more creative. It probably ends in the middle of the night with a bunch of ads for fake diplomas and legal documents, usually in a language not commonly used on this site. Was there a link in the post you refer to? I saw a different one recently that looked so real I didn't report it, just thinking the OP had pasted something in by accident, and that the post was probably genuine. In retrospect, it was probably another stolen post. I hadn't thought of that. Thanks for pointing it out. EDIT: Just found the post you referenced and looked.... There are two links (which I disabled in the quote below). See them?

No, not that. Your post would be #8 in this thread, my first post in this thread would be #7.

Is it just me or are the post numbers missing again? I cannot see them.

Is that picture showing the opposite end of the part shown 6 posts back? That part, in generic terms, is a Steering Bellcrank. I don't know if Chrysler had a different name for it.

That sounds reasonable. And that sounds wrong. I have no ford books handy, but IIRC 12v to the field terminal makes it charge, so whenever it is trying to charge, the field terminal would be shorted to the armature terminal by points in the regulator. When either the voltage or current gets too high, a relay would pull down (there's 2 relays, one for voltage and one for current), and remove the short. Once the short is removed (points open). the resistor you are seeing (between the armature and field terminals), and another resistor to ground form a voltage divider for the field terminal, sending the field something much less than the 12+ volts it was getting when the points were closed. This makes the generator barely charge. In operation, the voltage regulator relay probably vibrates very quickly between "hard charge" mode and "barely charging" mode as soon as the battery is getting close to fully charged.

It should be possible. I have seen attempts, but have yet to see one actually working on 12v.

You have 205s at 48-50 lbs. and its hard to steer?! Wow. How much caster does this car currently have? Is there any oil in the steering box? I hope you find what you are looking for, but I doubt it exists. I was wondering how much electricity it might take. I found an article on the subject. Apparently it takes 470w at 12v for a small car, and "EPS systems can easily exceed 100 A using a standard 12 V battery supply." That would be 200 amps on a 6 volt system. I doubt any extant stock 6v systems could support this for long, and even if they could, the brownout effect would be horrendous at idle, when you really need it, and generators don't really charge. I have toyed with the idea of putting a separate 12v negative ground system on a 6 volt positive ground car (to run stereo equipment or whatever). I would have used one of those tiny Kubota alternators and a lawn tractor or motorcycle battery. A little caution is needed because there would be 18 volts (more while charging) between a 12v and a 6v hot wire. In your case, I think it wouldn't be enough. I suspect you would have to find room for a CS130 and a group 29 battery, in addition to the 6 volt stuff. Even then it might not be enough. According to the article, large cars push the limits of what these units can do, and this is not only a large car, but one that is hard to steer. It sounds like hydraulic power steering might be easier. IMHO Saginaw's "variable ratio" power steering box is the greatest thing ever for power assist in full size cars. I understand you can get them for the torsion-bar Mopars now. I wonder if anything like that exists for your car? Article here: https://www.electronicdesign.com/automotive/steering-right-direction

Except that the housing adjustment isn't really what sets the choke during the period you are having trouble. The choke pulloff setting does that. The housing does have some small effect on warmup, but its main purpose is to set the choke rich enough to start, while still allowing enough movement from heat to get the choke full open when hot. The instant the car starts, the choke pulloff snaps the choke plate hard to the position the car needs to drive away cold, and that is almost open. It sure sounds to me it isn't happening. That said, you sure arent going to hurt anything by trying different settings of the housing.