Bloo

Because, at least in some thread I read on bobistheoilguy, a thread I cant find right now, the API wont allow you to do any of those things. SA just means "mineral oil and nothing else, so I guess you could probably do that. I was just trying to figure out if Rotella 10w30, when the product names and labeling changed, still had 1200PPM zinc in it. The answer to that question was inconclusive. Apparently not. or maybe it does in 15w40 only? Or maybe not. Those guys over on bobistheoilguy send oil in for testing all the time. The answer is still not clear. There are also some legality issues selling anything in the USA as motor oil that does not meet the latest certs. Honestly you could go down this rabbit hole for weeks, maybe years or maybe never get out. It isn't even clear that more zinc is better. It is true that zinc was originally added as an anti-scuffing agent. If you add too much it can do more harm than good. The whole additive package may matter more. Lots of testing has been done, and there seem to be two camps. One camp thinks 1200ppm or so is necessary with high lift cams and stiff valvesprings. Another camp thinks that the total package of the additives and the oilstock itself is what matters, and there is no correlation to zddp level. Even more so if the oil in question is synthetic. Tests have been done that prove this. Tests have been done that prove the other side's point. Tests have been done that show adding zddp made the oil's performance worse. To further confuse the issue, apparently there are "synthetic" oils for sale in the USA that would not be allowed to be called synthetic elsewhere in the world. Forums of course tend to be worldwide. Synthetic oils may need zddp less. But which ones? On this forum, when many of our cars were made zddp was not in use yet anyway. I have a couple of engines that had the camshafts go flat. I dump zddp additive in them now. I was not defending, nor do I use any 9 dollar a quart oil. I would rather have clean new oil than expensive oil. Old cars foul the oil quicker and need the oil changed a lot. Often expensive oil is justified by a longer change interval. I shy away from that.

Looks Pontiac-ish to me. Probably a 1932.

As I understand it, one cannot API certify an oil to a standard that is not current. Many hobbyists are clamoring for more zinc than the current standards allow. If you cannot certify to an old standard, that implies that any oil aimed at hobbyists who want more zinc would not be certified. I have no experience with this particular oil.

Didn't you once post that the forum software thought you were "liking" too many things? How much was too much?

OH! I have been wondering as long as I have been here what a "like" button does in a forum context. I never noticed the reputation indicator Since the forum upgrade, there seems to be multiple ways to "react" to a post. I wonder how this affects the count?

Thank you everyone for the responses!. I guess I will put the old one back on.

It is a Packard Clipper, Probably a 1946 or 1947 Super Clipper.

That sounds right. I think my 36 has about a half turn of preload and I will look when I get a chance. I gather the springs varied a lot by year, but if it closes when cold and opens with a heat gun, and the weight is in a position to hold it open while the spring is slack, I think you are done. The engine and chassis is looking great. The rust repair is looking good too!

Yes, it could. You didn't mention whether the taillights work. The first thing I would do is verify that the smallest filament in the taillight is lighting with the taillights, and that the socket of the bulb is grounded. This is important. If they have converted to a flat bulb, you need to verify absolutely that they have the correct wire grounded, or switch back to a stock type bulb. If that doesnt fix it, you need to look at the turn signal switch. On nearly every American car of that vintage, it works as follows: Power comes from somewhere, probably the fusebox, to the flasher. From the flasher, it goes to the turn signal switch. When you turn the signal on, The switch just connects a front bulb to the flasher, pretty simple. On the rear it is a bit more complicated, because they usually use the same filament in the bulb (the big filament) for both turn signal and brake. When you signal for a turn, you might be braking, and the bulb is already on solid. When you turn the signal on, the signal light switch disconnects one rear bulb from the brake light circuit, and connects it to the flasher. When the signal cancels, the switch disconnects the bulb from the flasher and reconnects it to the brake lights. A bad turn signal switch can and often does cause either the brakelight or the turn signal or both to not work on one side in the rear.

That looks an awful lot like a Ford "FE" engine.

This is what I read back in the 1980s in some oil industry publication. At that time the word was that any gasoline available contained Ethanol, Methanol, or MTBE, or some combination of the three in concentrations up to 10%. They tried to keep Methanol content down because of corrosion problems. This was how they got the octane up without lead, which was, at the time, limited to 1/10th of a gram per gallon, and it was only good for about 1/2 or 3/4 of an octane point. You could expect super unleaded to be at the full 10%. In the time since then, I understand MTBE has been banned in California, and I don't think it is used in WA where I live anymore either. 10% alcohol should be nothing new. The implication is that gas has not changed that much, yet today suddenly everyone is having problems and screaming about it. I wonder what changed?

It was last changed in the late 90s sometime, maybe as late as 2000, and wasn't any sort of NOS/NORS, just a new pump from the parts store, most likely NAPA. The current manufacturers aren't giving very good clues about what if anything they have done to address the issue. Airtex at least adressed it; That sounds like marketing jargon, but at least they mentioned "multiple fuel blends"

Thanks for the response! I was not aware of him. But it still looks as though I will still have to buy a new one, at least if an ethanol-compatible one is available. If not I guess I'll take my chances with the current one and see how long it lasts. His website says: "Please note that I restore AC, Blackstone, Carter, and Stewart-Warner mechanical, screw-together pumps. I do not restore electric pumps, or factory-sealed fuel pumps." This is a factory-sealed crimped together pump.

Is anyone making mechanical fuel pumps with a diaphragm compatible with ethanol? I bought an ethanol compatible kit for my Pontiac from Then and Now Automotive, and that is working out great so far. I now need one for a Ford 390-2v, and it is the crimped together non-rebuildable style. Then and Now cant do anything with this type of pump. There are several brands available, but the technical data is a bunch of marketing jargon. I dug pretty deep online when I looked last fall, hoping to find some real data on ethanol compatibility. I didn't get anywhere. As of today the brands available on Rock Auto are Spectra Premium, Airtex, Delphi, and Carter. The pump I have is 20 years old. I suspect it is not ethanol compatible. It still works, but is off of the car. Thoughts?

I vote for cranbrook, because when you blow up the picture of the rear, I think I see the kickup of the "k" at the end of the script.

There is surprisingly little info out there. Here is the Early Times Chapter's page on heat risers, just in case you haven't already seen it. It does not answer your question. http://www.earlytimeschapter.org/manifoldheatcontrolvalve.html And another recent thread about a 1949 l6 that I suspect uses the same heat riser parts as your 53. Unfortunately, there is no difinitive answer there either, but there are some pictures. http://forums.aaca.org/topic/293664-engine-hesitates-and-back-fires-while-driving My l6 (1936) is similar, but unfortunately the weight and spring are reversed front to back compared to the later cars, and I don't think any angle information from my car would be valid, even though many of the parts look the same. How much information can you get from the cut welds? If you can see how the slotted shaft was in relation to the plate, and get that correct, the weight will be easy. I guess theres no flat to locate it? No mattter. The weight should be up on top when cold and swing down as the riser moves to hot position. If it is a half moon shaped weight like in the 49 l6 thread, when cold it should be curved side up, flat side down with the flat side parallel to the ground. As it warms it should swing in toward the engine block, and end with the flat side perpendicular to the ground, and the curved side in toward the engine. This is only an approximation, because the shaft does not move quite a whole 90 degrees, but get it close to that and it will work.

Is this the same car? http://www.wbtv.com/story/35159466/highway-patrol-drunk-driver-crashed-39-pontiac

As I recall from the lube books in the gas station I worked at when I was a kid.... Ford recommended "type A" through 1962. In 1963, "type F" came out, and Ford recommended it retroactively all the way back to the first Ford automatics. One person I know had a low mileage 1954 ford with a 2 speed Fordomatic. This transmission actually had 3 speeds, but only used 2 of them. It was a close relative of the Cruise-O-Matic, and was in no way related to the real 2 speed Fordomatic. Confused yet? He drained the fluid and replaced it with type F. It would not shift right until he drained it all back out (converter too!) and put in Dexron. Dexron was/is the sucessor to the "Type A" that Ford originally specified for this car. I don't know what the right answer is, but I would be inclined to use Dexron (or some "Type A" equivalent from Penrite or whoever) if the dipstick says "type A". It probably will. One other thing, Not sure if this applies to 1958, but some early Cruise-O-Matics have a rubber bushing about an inch or so around where the shift linkage attaches to the arm coming out of the transmission. The rubber falls out, causing a really huge amount of slop. It may not actually be shifting into the gears you think it is.

I don't know specifically where to get a skyliner manual. Either under or behind the back seat is a metal box. Inside that metal box are a bunch of relays. They look exactly like Ford starter solenoids, and that may be what they are. The relays operate the motors that make the top go down. In broad general terms, It works like this: The first motor will begin the top lowering process. When the it gets to a certain point, it trips a switch. That switch triggers one of the relays in the box. The relay turns on the next motor. That motor lowers the top further, and when it gets far enough it trips another little switch. That switch in turn trips another relay, which turns another motor on to lower the top even further. This process repeats until you run out of relays and motors, and the top is down and inside the trunk. Best of luck with it

Here are some pics I found online that show about where the port is and how the choke pulloff diaphragm mounts. Also notice how he made the missing clip with wire. That works fine if you dont have the clip. The original clip looks more or less like the third picture I think the throttle linkage in the first picture is badly bent. One of the screws contacts that cam you can see for the various steps of fast idle. The other is the main idle screw and just touches something solid after the engine is hot and the choke is wide open.

Reading over your post again, I had a little bit to add. A stumble is probably one of two things. EIther the accelerator pump in the carb is weak, or the vacuum advance on the distributor is not working. With the engine off, you can look down the carb throat and move the throttle. The squirt from the pump should start instantaneously when you move the throttle. If it does not it needs attention. The vacuum advance should be plumbed to a "ported" vacuum port. It should be near the bottom of the carb somewhere. The actual port should be just over the top of the throttle. With any movement of the throttle, the port is now under the throttle. Chrysler distributors are sort of picky about point gap. I would recheck the dwell and timing. I am confused by this. Are there really no vacuum ports on this carburetor? The pulloff diaphragm probably attaches to the top with a couple of airhorn/bowl screws. It likely attaches with a u-shaped linkage that can be bent to set the pulloff. The carburetor looks like a mid-60s one with the usual 2 idle screws you expect to see on a Chrysler BBS or BBD with an automatic choke (it must actually be older because there is no PCV). The choke thermostat itself bolts into a little bowl-shaped area in the manifolds over near the head and pushes with a long rod, and attaches to the linkage with a little spring steel clip. Do you have any more pictures of this Carter? Do you have a tag number? If you have the tag I'll bet Carbking would have some insight. The lack of a port for the choke pulloff really surprises me, what little I can see of the throttle linkage looks like standard Chrysler automatic choke stuff, and if so, it had to have the pulloff. Could it be an industrial carb or something?

I wish I could answer this more definitively. Backfiring will almost never hurt a Carter carb such as yours. The fuel metering is done with a rod that moves up and down the main jet, so there is no rubber diaphragm to blow out. No worries there. It is possible to mix parts and come up with things that do not work together. This engine ran from 1960 until the early 80s, and there are a lot of parts that are almost the same but not quite. I have seen 2 intake manifolds with the hole for the choke thermostat at different heights. I have also seen different lengths rods on the choke thermostat. One possible reason for this is that some cars had a spacer under the carb. Another possibility is the factory using about 3 different brands of carburetor. Many slant sixes no longer have their original manifolds because they warp and break. Usually it is caused by improper mounting to the head (there are special washers that allow the manifolds to slide with heat expansion). Replacing one manifold often requires machining the angle of of the heat riser area to get the intake and exhaust ports all at the same height, and then machine the face that contacts the head because the intake and exhaust faces are no longer in the same plane. This should not be true, and would not be true with brand new parts, but with old warped parts it is usually the reality. To avoid this trouble, often the whole manifold assembly from another car will be substituted. A very good first step would be to verify that your intake manifold is the one that belongs on the car, and if not, figure out what it does belong on. Assuming it is the original manifold, you can likely just put on the correct choke thermostat and choke pulloff diaphragm, and then set the linkages up to original specifications. Rusty hinted at this earlier, but driving this car should run good, even cold. On basically any late 1950's or 1960s Chrysler product, you should be able to do the following: Stomp the gas pedal once (or 2 times if it is below 0*F) to set the choke and give a squirt of gas. Hesitate a couple of seconds (more like 5 seconds if it is below 32*F) and bump the key. It should start immediately, and run at a very fast idle. Tap the gas pedal again. If its really cold out, let it run for 10 seconds or so before you tap the pedal. The Idle will come down to a slower fast idle. You can just drive away now. You probably cant stomp it all the way to the floor without a bog, but you should be able to drive away normally with no drama at all while the car is still cold. The car will come the rest of the way down to normal idle as it warms up. I think the choke pulloff diaphragms for Carter carbs on a slant 6 were all the same up until 1969 or so, Carbking would know for sure. Many of those old pulloff diaphragms are discontinued, but can still be found on Ebay.

That is how I would do it. Make it push the linkage all the way at full throttle. It shouldn't bottom out and put a bunch of tension on the linkage, but should go basically all the way. Kick down happens somewhere near the end of travel. The further the linkage pushes back, the later and harder the shifts, and the more oil pressure on the clutches.

Thats not right. If it is adjusted by the book, perhaps some linkage parts are wrong. Generally speaking, the transmission linkage should bottom out at wide open throttle. The early shifting and lack of kickdown suggest that the transmission linkage is not getting pushed enough. It can harm the transmission. Tighten it up!