Bloo

The cranks stayed around for quite a while after electric starters came along. Think of it as a backup plan for that day the battery is a bit low.. If you can get some pictures of it we can better tell you what it is. There are quite a few different Studebakers that had cranks. Welcome to the forum!

A long time ago someone wrote in to Mechanix Illustrated and asked test driver Tom McCahill what the difference is between a 49 and a 50 Ford. He said "One Year". Most of the actual differences have already been pointed out in this thread. One more difference, the little knight (or whatever he is) on the hood has a longer fin on his helmet in 50 than he did in 49.

That's probably true, but it is extremely misleading. 1913 were the first "real" Studebaker gas cars. Any Studebaker up to 1913 is most likely pulled by horses. Horse drawn vehicles were Studebaker's main business. They were long established when cars came along. Before 1913, Studebaker made some attempts to get their feet in the automotive business by hanging a "Studebaker" radiator script on them and selling through their dealers. They did this with Garford cars for sure (around 1908?), and I believe there were some electric cars as well. The last time Studebaker did this was an about 1911, with EMF, after buying part of the company. EMF was the maker of Flanders and EMF cars. A 1912 "Studebaker" is an EMF (or maybe Flanders) with a Studebaker radiator script hanging on it. In 1912, Studebaker bought the remaining portion of EMF, and started gearing up to make their own cars. In late 1912, the first "Studebaker" gas cars emerged as 1913 models. They were very closely related to the EMF. I have a 1913 model 25. It has gaslights, and originally had a Prestolite self starter that worked by leaking some acetylene into the intake and then firing the ignition. I consider this a hand crank only car. Studebaker probably didn't. There are also Studebaker model 35 cars in 1913. Those had electric lights. I don't know if they had electric starters.

Thanks!

Compression is ok if it is like that on all cylinders. Most, maybe all flathead Pontiac sixes have a piece of pipe inside the intake manifold that can rust through and let exhaust from the heat riser into the intake. It is directly under the carburetor if you have it. I would look for holes in there. Welcome!

We really are spoiled with modern tires. I have gone decades without putting on a spare. Many cars used to carry two. It could be that more "stress on the rims" is because you took that corner back there 10MPH faster than you would have with the car darting all over the road like it would have done on it's original tires.

Does this clip just bump against the float pivot pin with its ends, and touch the top plate to stay in place? If so the carter BBD has something like that. Got any BBDs in your junkbox?

Higher gears, too.

Oh really? Like 400M? I have never heard of that. Somewhere around here I have some custom high-compression early 318 pistons left over from long ago. Like many forged pistons of old, they are heavy. I wouldn't want to use them today. I assume he had to cut valve reliefs. What else? Was he able to use hypereutectic cast and reduce the weight? What compression ratio was he able to achieve? JV Puleo, sorry for the short thread derail, If turns into a conversation, I'll start a new thread. Like others here I have never seen a chart like you are looking for. Back in the day I would just start with the bore size to get some idea what might work and then try to find junk ones from some other car enthusiast to measure. I would get pin diameters from Chilton or Motor, but the pin height was always a mystery until I could measure one. I guess I'm telling you what you already know. Custom race pistons are expensive but much easier, and probably a lot lighter. You didn't say what you are working on, but If it is something really old like your Mitchell I imagine the cast babbitt bearings would appreciate something light. Best of luck in your search. If you do find a chart like that, please post it!

Never heard of this either. I can tell you it isn't true in Washington State.

I don't think expected compression is a factor. It has been a while I must admit. Basically the tester has a regulator and two (or maybe one) gauge(s). The readings are in percent. There is a measured (sort of) amount of air coming out the hose that represents 100% leakage. A plugged hose would be 0% leakage. The gauge reads what percentage of air is allowed to leak out of the cylinder. If you are some guy who hones cylinders on a CK-10 with a torque plate while hot water runs through the block, and then file-fits his rings, you might get 3 percent. On a new engine normally... maybe 10 percent, to the best of my recollection. Many cars drive around with 35-40 percent or more. Like compression, you can't expect any 2 gauges (or any two mechanics) to give exactly the same numbers. Racers may care about absolute numbers. For the rest of us, leakdown is about figuring out what is broken before taking the engine apart.

Yes! The leakdown test. When you have a burned valve, one cylinder will have extremely low compression compared to the rest. With those numbers its fine. The overall compression numbers ARE low, but that doesn't really mean anything. They are EVEN, and that is good! When you do a compression test, just to pull numbers out of the air, on an engine where about 120 pounds is normal, an old engine with a burned valve is gonna do something like 120 110 105 30 120 100. The 30 is a problem. Nothing else there is. When you do a leakdown test on this hypothetical engine, it is gonna hiss out the exhaust on that 30 pound cylinder (probably). Most burned valves are exhaust valves. Burned intake valves are EXTREMELY unusual. On the other hand if it hisses real loud out the breather instead, there is probably a hole in the piston. If it blows bubbles in the radiator it has a blown head gasket (or a really big crack). Has your car been sitting a while? Hissing out the intake indicates the intake valves leak. I would make sure they arent adjusted too tight and just drive it. Cars that sat for a while usually have some rust or carbon or something on the valve faces that screw up compression and leakdown readings. Now to be sure, 55 is low. The trouble is, if you take 2 compression gauges you will get 2 different results. If the engine cranks slower because the battery is a little weak, the numbers will be lower. If you don't open the throttle (some people do, some don't). the numbers will be lower. If you use oil, the numbers will be higher. Jumped valve timing will cause low compression on all cylinders. It should be running horrible if this is what happened. Low compression across the whole engine can also be worn rings. Engines with worn rings that have no other problems usually run fine. The power will be a little down, and they will dirty up the oil fast.

Generally it wouldn't matter. It would affect the test (less leakage hot), but usually a leakdown test tells you the difference between bad rings (who cares, just keep it full of clean oil and don't forget to change it) and other serious mechanical defects that mean you need to stop driving and fix it right now (burned valves, blown head gasket, hole in piston, etc.). If you think there is a possibility there are any that are too tight, then yes. If you are really interested in nitpicking how worn the rings are, then yes. About one squirt from an oil can. I usually don't. Leakdown tells you more but requires every cylinder to be put on TDC. Compression is easier. If you are doing leakdown, the car probably runs horrible, and already failed a compression test. Now you want to find out why. ^^This! Also look for bubbles in the coolant if you suspect a blown headgasket or cracks. Where the air comes from tells you what is bad. Rings always leak some (listen at breather), even when new. Valves (listen at carb, exhaust) shouldn't at all. A car that just sat for years might need to be driven some before you get accurate results.

The Penrite product I mentioned is the right thing to use in a steering gear. On older cars with a manual steering box, some form of gear oil was usually specified. It will just run out on the ground. The steering box will be found to be empty and full of rust. People have driven themselves crazy trying to use modern seals on pittman shafts, etc. If you look around on the web you will see plenty of examples. Invariably, the oil runs out on the ground. I suspect any OEMs that used thick grease did so because they couldn't keep the oil in. Edit: Yes thats the product. If you are in the US, restorationstuff.com has it. I understand it is more widely available in Australia.

Ya, that is the answer. I couldn't even source that in the 80s. Good luck.

What application exactly? For a steering box, that is just plain wrong. Yes I know some OEMs did it. The stuff I know as "fibrous grease" does not flow. In a steering box, it will wipe off of the gears and not relubricate them. When grease is used in steering boxes there have been reports of it migrating up the steering column and coming out on the steering wheel. Penrite makes a special steering box grease. In the US, it is available at Restoration Supply. This is semi-fluid, so it keeps the box lubricated, but it doesn't leak out. Others here have mentioned John Deere Corn Head Grease. For general chassis use, I use Redline CV-2 for anything I have cleaned out completely and rebuilt. This is a synthetic extreme-pressure general-purpose grease that is good enough for CV joints. It is tough to go wrong with this. For stuff that hasn't been taken apart, I use Texaco Marfak #2 (now called Chevron Multifak #2), which is just a good old fashioned chassis lube. Several online sources call it "long fiber". It does not seem like the fibrous grease of long ago to me. I just checked and "Mopar Multi Mileage Lube" is still available from Chrysler. This is an old fashioned long-fiber grease but with a special property. It leaks oil. I suspect this is the closest you will find today. It is (and was) used as general purpose chassis and wheel bearing grease. It works great for that. I guess It would be more likely to protect steering box gears than many other greases because of the oil that leaks out of it. I would be afraid of the godawful mess it is going to make. This stuff is great for torsion bar sockets on Chrysler products (its original application), and anywhere else there is a grease cavity, because the oil will continue to run out of the grease cavity and lubricate whatever it is you are trying to lubricate. If you put a tube of this grease on your bench in 6 months there will be a trail of oil down to the floor. I bought my last tube of it in the mid 90s. It is in three plastic bags and the oil is STILL getting out.

Probably not. Replica tires are almost always commissioned by someone else. As padgett said, you should contact the people who had them made. Anything else is a waste of time, and also will make the people who own the name (General) less likely to allow things to be made with their name in the future. It is hard enough to get tires.

The trouble is, the outer and the inner tierod ends have to be at the correct points in space for it to work properly and not royally screw up the handling. That may or may not be physically possible. Look under there and see if the rack would have to go through the frame, the engine, or something else that cant move. Assuming that isn't a problem, because of the necessary locations of the inner tierod ends, the rack has to be the exact correct width for the application. This means that in 99% of all cases, you cant just use something salvaged from a car. There are companies now that will custom-make a rack to your specification. http://www.unisteer.com/custom-built-rack-pinions/search-by-product/custom-built-items.html http://www.flamingriver.com/index.php/products/c0013 http://www.flamingriver.com/index.php/products/c0014 What are you trying to acomplish? Have you taken all the slop out of the original stuff? It might be pretty good. Better shocks and some swaybars might do more to improve steering response that a different steering system. I don't think rack and pinion would be noticeably better on a big car like that. If you are trying to improve the steering system you might look into a Saginaw variable-ratio power steering box. It would probably be easier to adapt than a rack.

The "little big block" 361 is a neat little engine. Being an odd duck, it is harder to get pistons/rings, as Rusty mentioned. I had one in a 1965 b-body. I liked it a lot. Of course any of the other sizes will make more horsepower (and burn more gas). I don't recall if you can just bore them to 383. Probably, but I wouldn't. low-deck 383s are common as dirt. Also that 361 may not need boring. 383s opened at high mileage often have carved out a deeper ridge over by the spark plug and need boring.

If those are the choices, then Reg Evans nailed it and its a 361. No 413s were ever built as two barrels as far as I know. All 413s are RB engines. RB engines take a different intake manifold than B engines. The reason is the deck height. RB engines have a taller deck, and so the intake has to be wider to fit. There were 2 barrel RB 383 engines in Chrysler division (only) cars around 1960 (all other 383s are B engines, and all other 2 barrel engines in this family are also B engines). As far as I know, the intake manifold from the RB 383 is the only 2 barrel RB manifold that exists. If thats a 413, then someone has put this relatively rare RB 383 2 barrel manifold on it.

What? Too thin to overbore? How much is it already overbored? Here is the decode table. I see some mistakes in their manifold table, but theres plenty of info to figure out what engine you have: http://www.moparts.org/Tech/Archive/motor/36.html Here's the stamping locations for the displacement. Which pad you have will tell you whether its a 'B" or "RB" engine. (Dont put too much stock in the displacements in red on this graphic, its only correct for newer stuff. RB 383's for instance do exist. The pad location is the important thing here)

"Matching numbers" used to mean exactly that. I believe it was around 1968 or so, in the interest of preventing car theft the (American) manufacturers began stamping the VIN, or part of it, in the engine block, and maybe the core support, and possibly the frame (if it had one) and maybe in a hidden place or two. There was also a tag that was readable through the windshield. As time went on I believe they started stamping other things like transmissions and rear axles. There are books that list all the locations the partial VIN (or whole VIN) are located. Your local highway patrol probably has one. An unintended consequence of this is that you can now tell if a part has been replaced. Got a new engine on warranty? The number doesn't match all the others anymore. The numbers literally all match... or they don't. How much you can tell varies with year and manufacturer. A Mazda Miata for instance has the VIN on every body panel. Since "matching numbers" implies a nice original car that has never been wrecked, had the engine changed, etc. people started applying this term to all sorts of cars it makes absolutely no sense on. I would guess on a 57 ford that "matching numbers" means that it has the correct type engine as called out in the serial number (if they were even doing that yet), and that the casting dates on everything are believable, in other words there are no castings from march of 1957 on a car that was assembled in December of 1956, assuming you can even verify the production date. There were no matching serial or VIN numbers that far back on Fords as far as I know.. There is no way to tell if the parts are original, only that someone chose the correct ones when restoring the car.

Some parts of Utah and Idaho

Having painted half the earth with tempera paint when I was kindergarten age, I remember chalky powdery stuff that did not much resemble that blue stuff on tires. If it were me, I think I would call Diamondback or Coker and ask if they know what the blue stuff actually is. Either way, let us know how it goes.

I too would have expected the older sizing system (outer diameter) to be in use when that car was built. 32x4 is likely correct. On the other hand, I might be tempted to get the taller ones.