Bloo

Maybe you have original rims after all....

This change probably occurred in 1965. Somewhere I have a wall poster detailing these changes from a major US tire manufacturer, probably Goodyear. It lists all the "new" sizes and which tires they would replace. I cant find it. I'm sure I put it in a safe place! The copyright date was 1965. What I wonder about is what happened in 1948 (1949 in the quote above). 1948 is a year I have often heard thrown about for an industry-wide tire size change, much like 1965. (can't be 1970, letter sizes existed by then). If the 92 aspect ratio began in 1948(49?), then what was the aspect ratio before 1948? 100? If it was 100, that begs the question what changed when the tire sizes changed from tread diameter (31x4 for instance) to rim diameter (4.00x23) in the mid 20s (1924?)? Anything? If not, those 2 sizes would be the same. The implication, I guess, is that all pre-1948(49?) tires are a 100 aspect ratio. If that is true, it sure goes a long way toward explaining why nobody can seem to get inflated tires in their sidemounts. Do any of you guys know for sure?

Brian: The gauge does require a good ground, as does the sending unit (tank). When things are working as they should, 0 ohms is empty and 30 ohms is full. If you disconnect the wire from the tank and ground it to a good ground, the gauge should go to full. If you let it the wire hang loose, the gauge should peg. If all this is normal, then the trouble is in the tank (or it's ground). In the past, I have rebuilt a couple of sending units of this type. There is plenty that could be wrong in there, including but not limited to, gears rusted stuck, sunk or missing floats, rod bent, and trouble with the resistor itself. If you do have a sending unit bad, and the original is there, I recommend that you find a way to have it rebuilt, rather than trying to adapt something from a newer Buick, as is sometimes done. Grounding the tank as you did to the frame should have fixed it if that was the problem. The instrument panel ground is probably more critical for the gas gauge than anything else in the dash, but if shorting the tank wire to ground gets you to "e" and disconnecting the wire pegs the gauge, everything in the dash is probably fine. An accuracy check of the gauge itself on the full end could be done by hooking a 30 ohm resistor from the tank wire to ground. This should make the gauge read full. Usually, the trouble is getting to 0 ohms. 0 ohms is empty, and so any stray resistance in the ground or the wiring prevents you from getting to "e"

Mine too.... but the current pump has zerks, apparently intended for some little gun that doesnt make any pressure. Grease (when used) is also different for a water pump. I wish I still had oil cups....

No, you cant get that kind of pressure with a grease cup, and whatever is underneath it may not be expecting 2000psi. People have broken water pump castings (and probably other things).

If you disconnect the wire from the tank, and short it to ground, the gauge will go to empty. If It can do this, the gauge and wiring are fine and you need to look in the tank for the trouble

I remember seeing 16.5" tires on trucks years ago. 16" does not interchange. If the manual says 16.5", someone probably changed the rims to get to a size they could easily buy tires for. That was done quite a bit. The first number in the tire size is the section width, or the width at the widest point on the tire when mounted on whatever width of rim the tire manufacturer chose to measure them on. This is also true on metric tires, but the measurement is in mm. Figuring the section width out is the easy part. Just multiply by 25.4 . 8.75"=222.25mm, 9.5"=241.3mm, 10"=254mm. Your current tires, at 235mm, are right in the ballpark for section width. Perhaps more important is the overall height. I paid little attention to pickup tires back then, so I am going to have to guess. On a passenger car tire from the same period as your truck, it is generally assumed that the aspect ratio is about 80 if it is not specified. Aspect ratio is the percentage you multiply the section width by to get sidewall height. Very few tires measure exactly what they "should". This will get you close. I am gonna go with 80. 8.75" * 80%(aspect ratio) = 7" * 2(sidewalls) = 14" + 16.5"(rim height) = 30.5" tall tire 9.5" * 80%(aspect ratio) = 7.6" * 2(sidewalls) = 15.2"+ 16.5'(rim height) = 31.7" tall tire 10" * 80%(aspect ratio) = 8" * 2(sidewalls) = 16' + 16.5"(rim height) = 32.5" tall tire 235mm / 25.4 (convert to inch) = 9.25" * 85%(aspect ratio) = 7.86" * 2(sidewalls) = 15.72" -+ 16"(rim height) = 31.72" tall tire You are already close, if not right on. If the height is wrong, that will show up on the speedometer. If the truck is unmodified, and you want to take a guess at which of the three sizes it had, drive 10 miles (or 20 or 30) on a road that has mile markers, and find out exactly how much your odometer is off. Apply the percentage of error to the tire height. There is only about 3% to 4% difference in height between the sizes above. It should already be real close unless I guessed wrong on the aspect ratio of the original tires.

There should be a hose between the body/frame and the fuel pump to deal with engine movement, shouldn't there? There is on my 36 Pontiac, and I believe there is on a 37 Buick as well, though I don't have one here to look at right now. I would be really surprised if it were omitted in 38. It is a quirk of the GM fuel gauge that it needs a perfect ground on both the sender and the gauge. If the sender is not perfectly grounded, the gauge can never get to empty. The fuel tank is only mounted with straps, and those probably have tarpaper or something on them to prevent chafing. The fuel line probably just has metal tabs bent around it. I have often wondered how the factory made sure the ground was ok with no ground wire. A while ago I was looking at the crimped hose w/fittings (on ebay) that connects the body to the fuel pump on the Pontiac. NORS aftermarket rubber hoses turn up regularly. One day, an example popped up that had a brass external braid on the hose. I have never seen a genuine GM hose, but I suspect they had the braid, and that it was there to ground the fuel gauge. Does anyone know?

If it is Packard (and it probably is), they engine was made in 320, 352, and 374ci. Packard sold the 320 to AMC for sure, and maybe also the 352.

The modern recommendation, as far as I know is to replace the cork with nitrophyl. That is the stuff they made carburetor floats out of in the 80s (that all sunk). Maybe it is better. I am not a fan of it and have not tried it in this application.

Indeed. I researched this, and came to the same conclusion as trimacar. I sunk my original floats in ethanol-laced gasoline for about a week in a coffee can to see if they would absorb the fuel. The original shellac was long gone. After a week, they were fine so I put them back in. Some folks on another forum insisted they would sink. I was convinced they wouldn't. That was fine for 6 months, then apparently they sunk. The story isn't over yet as I haven't pulled the sender out to do a post mortem. A full tank reads about 1/4 now. I think you will find Indian Head Shellac is still...... wait for it.... Shellac. You can also get Shellac at a woodworking store, either pre-dissolved or in flakes. It has a shelf life, and lasts much longer dry, so the flakes are going to be the best Shellac. I would not use any shellac in a fuel system today. It isn't going to stay there anyway. What happens when it gets in the float valve? Or the valve guides? Some of the sealers used today are 1) gas tank sealer 2) super glue 3) q-dope (polystyrene) 4) POR-15. There are probably others I am forgetting. There are old threads, lots of them. I tried polystyrene. The gas washed it off. Bobs Automobilia has sealed floats. I have no idea what they are sealed with, or whether it will wear through after spinning on the wire arm for a while, or whether a little worn-through spot matters. As trimacar pointed out, It is a closed cell material and it SHOULDN'T matter. I have not tried polyurethane. Maybe a brand new piece of cork would be good enough......

After seeing that Auburn brake I'm going to have to look at the ones on my 36 Pontiac. They could be like the Auburn.

That doesn't sound right. I'm no engineer, but I have never seen a Bendix style (moving pivot) system that did not have a short leading shoe. I have worked on plenty of cars that were too old to have self adjusters. I am not necessarily trying to talk you out of the long shoe. (I am assuming you have a moving pivot system because I haven't seen them.)

I had the opposite experience. The "asbestos free" linings of the 90s worked better than anything I ever had, and especially on drum brakes, They did have one annoying quirk, expanding as they broke in. Are asbestos brakes banned in Canada? They were banned down here (US), but I don't think they still are.

That doesn't look like the Rambler v8. I'm guessing Packard.

A 41 Olds is probably Bendix-style "servo action" brakes. The pivot point at the bottom is movable. The leading shoe helps apply force to the trailing shoe. Unlike Fords of the period, the short shoe is always the leading shoe. A picture of the shoes on the backing plate would show if the pivot is movable. Many Pontiacs and Buicks of the period have this, but not Chevrolets.

Is there even a seal down there on your car? I don't think my '36 has one. I put that penrite stuff in and it stopped leaking. Straight grease is not a good plan. It does not lubricate well because it wipes off and never flows back. After a time, it may migrate up the steering shaft and come out the top of the steering column.

True enough, but as others have stated, that jack is missing a crucial part (the saddle), not anything special. I remember jacks like that. The saddle just lifts out of the hole you can see. Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, and there were not harbor freight stores everywhere with low clearance "racing" jacks perennially on sale, SOP on a really low car was to take the saddle off (so you could get the jack under), jack the car up maybe four inches, set it back down on a wooden block, take the jack out, put the saddle back in, and jack the rest of the way up. Yes, it is extremely unstable without the saddle.

JMHO... That is PROBABLY all true. I do know that 62-up wideblock (poly) through 5.2/5.9 magnum all bolt to the trans and flexplate the same way. I dont know about the 4.7. If it is the same as a magnum, then yes. If the factory spacer is 2 inches (I think it is) you will need to space it out at least that far. You may have to go farther, because IIRC that crank flange didnt look like a later one. The aluminum torqueflite's torque converter registers on the crankshaft with a big round bump. If the old crank doesn't have this, or it is a different size, you will have to make it register and center. If it is too far forward or back after you do that then you will have to change the thickness of the adapter. Then (I think) you are going to need an 8-bolt flexplate that didn't ever exist. You could make it. Maybe a 426 hemi one would work, but I wouldn't bet on it. I am guessing everything you need is available today from the guy JackM mentioned. I wonder how thick it is? I wonder what it costs? No matter how you cut it, you are still going to lose about 2 inches because of the crank sticking out. (but you might gain a little back because the bore spacing is closer on a dodge hemi block) With the 318, the parts on the front of the engine all basically interchange through LA (at least). For instance the water pump lower hose connection switched sides in 1970, so for a post-1970 vehicle you can just change the water pump. The timing cover is about the same on all of them. It occurred to me that you could PROBABLY (I haven't tried this) bolt or almost-bolt all the front of engine parts (timing cover, pulleys, balancer, serpentine belt, etc. from a 5.2 magnum to the front of a poly 318 to shorten it and help get it into the Dakota. The similarity of the magnum block to an LA block (and thus the 318 poly) suggests this is possible. Anything that bolts to the heads or intake would have to be modified of course. I have a sneaking hunch you could save 4 inches or more overall (including the 2 inches at the bellhousing). Where is the sump and where do you need it to be? That stuff all interchanges on 318poly - LA318 - 5.2Magnum. Old 318 passenger cars are all center sump AFAIK. What does the Dakota have? Pan, pickup, oil pump, etc from a 5.2/318 (probably not 5.9) magnum out of a Dakota will probably bolt to a 318 poly, if it is even different. They might be the same stuff. Front sump pans also exist. I had one on a 1962 318 that came out of a box van or a mail truck or something. That allows you to put a 318 in a Ford . It sure looks to me like with that early engine you are going to spend a fortune doing stuff that would bolt together otherwise with a few parts from the pick n pull.

AFB versions also exist. They are the older, narrower AFB bolt pattern. I would expect a WCFB version to also use this bolt pattern (narrow AFB) rather than the earliest (oldest smallest) WCFB pattern. Four barrels existed from 1956 until 1963 or so, maybe even 1964. Dual quads also existed in 1957 (WCFB) and 1958 (AFB). All 1965 and 1966 were 2 barrel when they left the factory. If a 1966 is a four barrel, the manifold came off of something older. AFAIK all the manifolds interchange. I don't remember any casting numbers. From a good picture I might be able to make an accurate guess whether it is the manifold rustyiron2 needs. That is almost certainly the wrong engine family, but it is worth a look. The one rustyiron2 needs has the water crossover and thermostat area cast into the manifold, and the manifold closes up the top of the engine with a couple of cork strips at the ends, just like an LA engine or a small block Chevy. Intake ports will be evenly spaced (in other words not in pairs).

Yes. Nash... and large-body Ramblers through 1966. There are some issues: The torque tube is a whole different game in a Nash, the whole drivetrain is rigid except for a little rubber. It doesn't look to me like it would be that hard to adapt to me, but it is a completely different deal. There is no ball back there like a Buick or a Chevrolet or a Ford. I read a posting on some other forum from a guy who had done it. He said it was much more work than he expected. Custom machining for sure. Another problem arises if you need a mid 30s style floorshift. The three transmissions that commonly come stock with Borg Warner overdrive are Borg Warner T-86 (light duty), Borg Warner T-85 (heavy duty), and the Saginaw 3 speed. Of these only the T-86 even has a top cover, and it didn't come with both overdrive and a top shifter on the same transmission. It is possible to get a top shifter on one of these (jeep shifter IIRC), but you have to leave part of the side shift mechanism in and cut one of the old shift forks down to make the reverse lockout work for the overdrive. Some top shifters wont work because the overdrive case is in the way. There is more info about this on the Studerbaker Drivers Club forums. It is possible to make it work. It has been done. On the other hand if you have a column shifter, there are more options. The third thing you are likely to run into is that the overdrive transmission is longer, and on many old cars there is an x-member or some important part of the frame in the way. The torque tube also locates the axle fore/aft in a Buick. You have to add suspension members, usually ones from a Chevrolet truck to get rid of the torque tube.. People have done it successfully. I wouldn't. Chevrolets don't have that trouble, but the springs are not designed for the torque, and they are also pivoted/hinged at the axle tube. Something would have to change there. I wouldn't do that either. Fords have a transverse leaf spring and relied on the torque tube (and wishbone) to keep things from flopping around.... The trouble is right away you find yourself building a whole new car (whole drivetrain and suspension from the flywheel back). I am building a higher-geared third member for my 36 Pontiac. I went with the ring and pinion change because it changes the car the least. It is expensive. It is not near done. I agree with Jim Nelson's assessment that overdrive is cheaper (at least at Lloyd's prices). If I could go back I would probably go that way. There is one elephant in the room, however. You may need a third member rebuild anyway (it is more likely than you think). Then, you would have the third member cost on top of the overdrive . I have taken 3 rear axles apart within the last year (1936 Pontiac/Chevrolet). GM used ball bearings on the differential case back in the 30s. They weren't really up to the task. They used a Hyatt bearing on the pinion that, due to the design, has nothing to keep it located in the case. Buick axles are very similar in design, but larger. They also have a more powerful engine attached. All 3 of these axles I tore down were working, but very close to catastrophic failure. 3 axles later I still don't have enough good parts to build my third member. I have a NORS ring and pinion (3.82 to replace 4.89) and NORS bearings (these old weird bearings are out of production and really expensive). I still do not have a good differential case to rivet my new ring gear to. If anyone has 35-36 Pontiac or 35-36 Chevrolet Master or 35-39 Chevrolet 1/2 ton rear axle parts laying around, feel free to PM me.

Yes. It all fits. A trans and LA trans is the same thing (62 and later).

And to answer your question more directly, I don't know exactly what the factory adapter fixes. It does indeed take up the space made by the extended crank. I don't remember if it is just a spacer or if it actually changes the bolt pattern. The extended crank flange is still not threaded and has the wrong number of holes. I did at one time have an engine with a later (post-62) crank in a 1960(?) 318 block, so I know you can interchange cranks. I never had it bolted to an aluminum torqueflite, only a clutch, and I just can't remember if the bellhousing bolt pattern matched the later 318.

The torqueflite he refers to is the cast iron one. It is different. The adapter he refers to is part of the stock chrysler cast iron torqueflite (or powerflite) setup. They all had that (except the first year or two of the chrysler hemi, those had an extended casting where the bellhosing connects, and are all by themselves, as they predate even the cast iron powerflite and torqueflite). With enough aftermarket adapters you can make anything work, I don't know what is available today. I do know that the old stuff (61 back) wont bolt to the new stuff (62 up) with factory parts. Back in the day, that meant custom machining parts, and probably still does. Most guys didn't have that much money.... An engine swap of a pre-62 engine into something else generally meant keeping the cast iron torqueflite and the pushbuttons, and no "park" A friend of mine had a chrysler 392 hemi in a GMC pickup, pushbuttons and all. The 62 and later aluminum torqueflites have park, and can be pushbutton or linkage shifted, depending on year. Any 62 or later trans with an A-engine bolt pattern bolts to any 62 or later A, poly, LA, or 5.2/5.9 magnum engine, clear into the 90s, and probably beyond. One must only pay attention to the fact that some much later engines are externally balanced, for instance a 360 needs a torque converter with some balance weights on it IIRC. That converter will slip onto any trans back to 1967, and on back to 1962 if you change the transmission input shaft. A 62 or later poly will just bolt up to the transmission like it was meant to go there. The motor mount bosses might even work, as they are in the same place as LA engines. IIRC 5.2/5.9 "magnum" engines have the LA engine mounting bosses cast into the side, plus another set of bosses for some later applications (jeep?). I forgot which was used in the dakota. If the dakota used the LA mounts, the poly might literally bolt in, outside of exhaust issues, steering interference, etc. (the poly is wider than a magnum or an LA).

The 62-66 (and the 58) 318 look like this. Notice the shape of the valve cover, and that the lifter valley is closed up by the intake manifold. This is the engine of which I speak. It is a 66 in the picture. You can see the flexplate (just like an LA flexplate) in the pic. These 62-66 engines will bolt to any transmission you can bolt a 273 - LA318 - 340 - 360 to. Here is an "old style" poly head. It is what the 270 probably is, and is a whole different engine than the 318 above. These are poly heads to fit on an early dodge hemi block. There was also a poly head to fit on the early chrysler hemi block. Both look like this, but the chrysler is physically bigger than the dodge. Note that the shape of the scallops at the bottom of the valve cover are different than the 318s we have been discussing, and also that the valve cover bolts are in a different location. A dead giveaway is that the valley under the intake manifold has a pan like an early hemi, unlike the later engine (318 etc) where the top of the engine is closed up by the intake manifold.