Bloo

Worn bearings just leak more. I don't see why that would help. Is there a groove to facilitate oil flowing around to the next port? I think there is a strong possibility that that a hole, completely though the cam journal at a right angle to the axis of the camshaft, must line up to an inlet and an outlet in the cam bearing for oil to flow through. With the engine running, this would happen fairly often. With the engine not turning, it might never happen. Until we have seen some parts of a disassembled 200 Ford six, or maybe an oiling diagram from a relevant shop manual, we are just guessing.

I don't believe you can reuse a cam bearing once removed. Are you sure there's a problem? I think @JACK M is on to something here. In many engines, in fact nearly all of them, underdelivering to the top end at low speeds and overdelivering at high speeds is a problem. This often leads to the need for more restriction in engines modified for racing, lest all the oil wind up in the top before it has time to drain back. That could cause the oil pump to suck air and the lower end to fail. A common tactic some stock engines use to partially deal with overdelivery to the top, especially American V8s, is to run the top end oil supply through a hole in a cam bearing, such that as the cam turns, oil is only supplied to the top end when the hole in the cam lines up with both the supply hole and the oil galley to the top end. From your description it sounds like you might have this in your six. You might just need to turn the crank (and thus also the cam) with a wrench until the hole lines up in order to pre-lube the top end.

Another possibility for fuel pump kits or parts: https://www.then-now-auto.com/

Welcome to the forum!

I don't believe a high compression head made a difference in torque specifications. I highly recommend getting a factory shop manual. Maybe this chart will help.

That's very possible, and extremely common! Rarely mentioned in cooling system threads on the web..... It all starts with airflow. If you don't have enough of that, everything else is window dressing.

If your cooling system is thermostat controlled the engine temperature won't change noticeably unless the cooling is marginal. If it is marginal though, you would gain a little headroom. Weaker solutions of Ethylene Glycol do transfer heat better than 50/50, and still provide better freeze protection than water. I've not gone down that path yet with any car. It gets both really hot and really cold where I live. Personally I would be looking for a way to make 50/50 work, but my decisions are heavily influenced by my local climate.

I have not used it. Several years ago I was considering using it for chassis paint. I probably saw the word "Gilsonite" in some description of the original chassis finish. I think maybe it was baked when used on cars back then, but I'm not sure of that either. I seem to recall forum threads where the brass fan restoration crowd were experimenting with it. That is where I would search for modern day knowledge. I don't know if POR-15 is comparable. As I understand it, it is meant to be over rust and does not stick to clean metal that well. I've also heard it is not UV resistant, so needs some other coating over top for best results. I wouldn't take any of that as gospel without digging further, but painting over rust is something I would rather not do, so I've not dug very deep. As you mentioned though, It probably would not be one step. On clean metal I would be more inclined to use 2-part epoxy primer than POR-15 and just brush it. I don't want to breathe it. It's expensive but has far better adhesion than anything we've had in the past. It also lacks UV resistance, so would need another coating over the top.

It wouldn't hurt anything, but once it gets chemically used up, it does no good to leave it in any longer.

Amen. But plan for a way to drain it easy. Maybe a solenoid valve or something, depending on how inaccessible it is. If you tuck it too far away or in a difficult spot, you will forget to drain it.

It's Evapo-Rust, not Vapor Rust. For all intensive purposes, they are one in the same. I see it spelled like this alot. I chock it up to the similar sound. Some want to nip this common miss spelling in the butt, but I could care less. OK I'll show myself out...

Those valves may have been running hotter than the others. Was the engine worn? My guess is that the darker ones had lower pressure and or more oil than the others due to ring leakage. Vacuum leaks screwing up the fuel mixture are another good possibility. It is not unusual at all to take apart an engine with no major problems apart and find some "light" exhaust valves. The previous posters are not wrong though, it *might* be water. If the valves are washed clean, it is almost certainly water. If they have a bunch of crud fused to them, and the crud is light beige on some while it is black on the others, I would be a lot less worried. It is kind of hard to tell from the picture which it is. Still, you should inspect very closely for cracks or porosity.

Long manifolds like that need to slide under the fasteners to deal with heat expansion, otherwise they break. Unless the service manual contradicts this somehow, use thick belleville washers with the tall center part of the dome up toward the nut.

If you want to run 27-28PSI in radial tires in my neighborhood during the summer, carry 2 spares.

Japan Black predates nitrocellulose automotive paint. It is Gilsonite (asphalt) paint, which can still be bought if you dig deep enough. This is the thick shiny black finish seen on US domestic door locks, brass bladed fans, and cast iron parts of all sorts of the industrial age. Painting with this is called "japanning". It imitates the look of east Asian lacquerware of the time but had nothing in common. Duco (nitrocellulose lacquer automotive paint) came along in the late 20s. "japan Colors" as in @TerryB's post are something else entirely. Those are pigments that were used in automotive finishing in the brass era where layers of flat pigment and layers of varnish were built up and sanded slowly in multiple coats, sometimes taking weeks. This a process Henry Ford sought to avoid when he switched to black only.

Yes. Either use a probe that is meant to be used with the gauge, or a gauge that is meant to work with your original probe.

This^^ Also, the two most common causes of tire failure are underinflation and overloading. If you look at load vs pressure chart for a given tire size and load range, it soon becomes obvious that those two causes are almost the same thing. On a typical tubeless radial tire, the most common sort of leaks people get are nails and rim leaks. Both are slow. If you start out at whatever pressure the chart says can carry the load, there is nowhere to go but down. More pressure means in the event of a leak you have more time and or distance before all hell breaks loose, and more time to catch the problem if you are checking your tire pressure regularly. If you are not checking, hopefully someone points at your low tire at a stoplight.

I'd try Frank Mance Plating, of Pittsburgh PA.

I'm not ignoring that. I use it in all my cars (except the Studebaker) for exactly that those reasons. I have G-05 in the 36 Pontiac and DexCool in everything else. I don't mind that. I do admit being annoyed with Prestone's dismal documentation that reads like a JC Whitney ad for engine overhaul pellets. It's not the first time i've been there and read all that. It isn't anything you did. I wouldn't know about that. It was at the parts store as "rust inhibitor and water pump lubricant. It never caused me any trouble. It's been decades since I've seen any. I'm not afraid of it. I have owned cars in the past that couldn't deal with much loss in cooling efficiency and were better off with water in the summer. If there were options other than soluble oil back then (like Pencool, NoRosion. etc.) to control the rust, I was not aware of them. We have had this thread before, lots of times. Grimy likes Pencool. StudeLight likes No-Rosion. Ed likes soluble oil. Leaving water in in the winter is not an option where I live so I am always looking for an ethylene glycol solution. A car that is driven as rarely as my Studebaker would get forgotten and wind up with a cracked block. That's why I was testing them. I did a drain and refill on the 36 Pontiac, and suddenly had foaming and coolant push. That's true. But why would you run something that has a tendency to foam up? Antifreeze without that tendency exists now. There's an ASTM test for it. It is on the datasheet, or should be... if the manufacturer bothers to publish one. Frankly I don't understand why this is an argument. I agree with almost all of what you say. However, the original poster's question was more or less "how much soluble oil should I put in the water?". I can't answer that. Edinmass probably can. He still uses it. He also lives in Florida where the water won't freeze. You suggested ethylene glycol was the proper tool for the job. As it happens, I tried that in a Studebaker with an engine from *exactly the same engine family* as the Studebaker the original poster asked about. It went badly. I didn't say don't do it. I advised preparation and a lot of caution if he was going to try it. I stand by that.

Definitely Mopar. I even recognize the cluster but I can't quite place it. 1968-ish Polara/Monaco?

Best of luck on the new project! Regarding the pics, I might not be much help because so many are posting from phones these days, but I can tell you what the problem is, and even how to fix it if you happen to be on desktop/laptop. Digital pictures do have a top and a bottom. Some software will allow you to display them any way you like, but they still have a top and a bottom. When you upload them, the forum software will display them as they really are. It has no way to know what you intended, it just starts at the top of the picture and displays it. If the car in the picture is upside down, it cannot recognize that, nor does it have the ability to do anything about it. To fix you must open them in an editor, flip them, and then save them after modifying them. The new file you saved is then a digital picture with the car right side up. A viewer generally can not do this. I use "Pinta" for this sort of editing. It is a lot like Microsoft Paint, which would also work. Any photo editor or graphics editor should be able to do it. If you are on a phone, I just don't know, but the same rules apply. You need to edit the photo and save after editing.

I used to have some 1940s Allen test gear and regret selling it. They were an outfit who made generator test sets, scopes, distributor machines, etc., a competitor to Sun. In the 90s their equipment was still pretty common.

I didn't say that. In fact I said I would rather be using ethylene glycol. Still, saying that ethylene glycol is the proper tool for the job when the original designers engineered the system around water is silly. Doubly so knowing that ethylene glycol has significantly worse thermal transfer properties when compared to water. It is in fact a different substance with different characteristics that must be taken into account. You will often see me recommending Zerex G-05. That is not because it is the only good option. No doubt there are plenty of others. It is just the first one I found that is 1) resistant to foaming and 2) did not show corrosion problems in testing for solder, brass, and copper on it's datasheet and 3) is available in bulk in concentrate form at chainstores like Oreilly, NAPA, and Autozone all over the US. I read a lot of datasheets when I was trying to solve a foaming problem in a Pontiac shortly before heading out on a roadtrip across several states. Now in Zerex's favor, all their antifreeze products do have datasheets that are relatively complete, even their cheapest products. Some other brands do also, though they do tend to be less complete. Prestone on the other hand had the absolute worst documentation I found. Some of their products, like the one you linked, have no datasheet at all, only a webpage full of marketing babble clearly not written by anyone who had engineered it or tested it. The only document available is an SDS. I guess at least the firemen will have something to go on if someone drinks it. Prestone does have datasheets for some of their products for industrial or truck use, but even in that case they give more space to marketing babble than data, and the data is sparse. Stuff like "Optimizes engine temp, prevents freezing, PLUS protects parts from buildup & corrosion. While ordinary antifreeze+coolant only manages 2/3s the job, Prestone’s Total Protection handles the complete job." and "Includes patented Prestone Cor-Guard® technology, our best advancement in cooling system parts protection that protects against rust, corrosion, scale, buildup and clogging of all cooling system components." carries about as much weight with me as "Ivory - So pure it floats!" and "Lucky Strike means Fine Tobacco!". Now in all fairness the "Prestone All Vehicles" linked is one of the products I tested in my admittedly unscientific foam testing. It performed very well in foam prevention, almost exactly the same as GM DexCool, though GM DexCool would be a much better choice because it has to meet documented standards to be allowed to carry the trademark. Until Prestone owns up to what standards their "all vehicles" product can be expected to meet, they can put anything in the bottle. There is no expectation that it will necessarily have the same characteristics as what I tested. It is just not possible to take them seriously when they do not publish specifications and test data.

Motor Cooling System WATER SYSTEM---(See Illustration No. 9. Page 25) There is a great amount of heat generated by the explosions in the cylinders and by the friction of the moving parts, which necessitates some method for cooling the cylinders, as otherwise the motor will overheat and lose power rapidly. (See "Overheating of Motor," page 51). Water is used for this purpose in the Studebaker "35." The water system, which contains 16 quarts, consists of a radiator, hose connections, water line, pump, and water jackets which are incorporated with the cylinders. The radiator should always be kept full of clean, soft water. ----1913 Studebaker Owners Manual https://autohistorypreservationsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/1913-STUDEBAKER-Owners-Manual-Model-35.pdf

I have a 1913 Studebaker. Several decades ago, when it was still my dad's car, I tried ethylene glycol in it. It was a disaster. This is an open system, with a motometer on the cap and an overflow tube that exits below the radiator. Was it foaming? Maybe. The old ethylene glycol formulas were bad for that. The vaporized ethylene glycol came out of the cap and the overflow and got all over the windshield where it mixed with road dirt and made it impossible to see. I had to hang my head out the side to see where I was going, and that meant breathing a bunch of ethylene glycol. It's pretty bad for you. It makes you cough a lot and sticks around for a few days. It also got on the paint, which it stained. The red car had pink spots. The spots did disappear finally, but it took about 3 years. I would like to be able to run ethylene glycol because it freezes here and suddenly. The Studebaker gets drained after every outing, and it is a major annoyance. I can't leave the water in it because it might be forgotten and freeze. I would never try ethylene glycol again without a lot of preparation. First I would make sure the packing drip at the water pump is very very slow. It did not take much ethylene glycol to foul the windshield. I would make a seal of some kind for the motometer, because I don't think it has one at all. It would need to seal, yet still come loose easy enough that you could get it off without burning yourself when water needs to be added. I would use Zerex G-05 coolant, as I have found it foams less than the old stuff. Finally, I would put a pipe, fairly large, maybe 3/4" inside the frame rail from the front of the car to the back, and dump the overflow into that so that anything that comes out could not possibly get on the windshield. In the mean time, I'll stick with water. I suspect what is being referred to as cutting oil here is milk oil. Not all cutting oil is water soluble. When I used to use milk oil, it wasn't sold that way. It was a container of "rust inhibitor and water pump lubricant" from the parts store. It was obviously milk oil. I doubt they have it anymore. I think the container was about the size of a pop can or a little smaller. @edinmass might know how much milk oil to put in. I think he mentioned using it in another thread.