Bloo

I don't believe that is a Pontiac engine. A 1933 Pontiac should have 8 cylinders. Welcome to the forum!

For what it's worth, they only looked like yours from 1948-1950. Welcome to the forum!

No. Well maybe, teed or dead headed? If you are teed, low is good, high indicates a restricted line or pickup. With the gauge dead headed on the inlet it ought to suck up a lot more than that. I don't know how much exactly, but a lot more than that.

In 53, stickshift cars were low pressure 235s with cast iron pistons. 53 Powerglides had the new high pressure 235 engine with aluminum pistons. 53 sedan deliveries had 216s. The seller has apparently mis-identified this engine as a 216 because it is low pressure. I made that same error back in 76 or so, and I still remember.

For chrome, Librandis in PA. Highly recommended. Results were excellent and delivered a few days ahead of what thy promised. Like all of the others, there is always a line to get in. Chrome is expensive these days. Call to find out ETA, roughly what it might cost. You won't get an exact estimate until they can inspect the parts. I shipped parts to them from WA. There was no problem with that. I think they probably do a lot through the mail. You always worry the shipper could lose your parts, but it's turned out fine for me so far. https://www.carchrome.com/

You won't believe how small this is until you are standing next to it. It makes a postwar Crosley look huge.

I don't think it's full pressure. If it is as built, it is a low pressure 235.

On cars where an over center spring is used, the spring and linkage has to be timed (for lack of a better word) to what the clutch pressure plate is doing. Over center springs are used when the clutch would otherwise become harder and harder to push as it gets closer to the floor. As you push down on the clutch, once you get past a certain point the spring starts helping you push the pedal. If this gets "out of time" somehow with the "push back" from the pressure plate, the pedal could stick to the floor. Misadjustment could do it. A broken linkage could do it. If you don't have a factory service manual, get one. Set up the clutch linkage from scratch in whatever way the manual says to do it. If the pedal still sticks to the floor, look for a missing return spring somewhere on the linkage. This would be a much lighter spring than the over center spring. If I remember correctly, the last time this subject came up there was a missing second spring somewhere down under the floorboards. Good luck with it and let us know how it goes.

That is not entirely wrong. As mentioned Cadillac was first after GM licensed the design. I have read somewhere that Cadillac even used a few Phillips screws in late 36. It would be a few more years before they became default on everything. Your assumption was probably correct more often than not.

A little of both I think. 40 years ago they usually had a visible bulge at the bottom of the tire. I had not noticed it in years, and suspected it was all due to people using insufficient air pressure (radials need more). Then, one of our own forum members decided he didn't like the way his looked. He posted pictures (Coker American Classic Radial If I remember correctly) and there it was, the radial bulge. His tires were not underinflated. I didn't think it looked that bad, but it was definitely there, and definitely noticeable. He switched back to bias. Look for it though. Every modern car in a parking lot will have radials. How many bulge? You sure don't see it much anymore. Another thing that triggers comments like that is typical 75 series modern tires when mounted on antiques. The aspect ratio is just wrong and it looks weird on the older ones. Sometimes they fit the rims OK, sometimes they don't. The smaller diameter will screw up the speedometer a little, and change the gearing for the worse. On some cars that matters, on others it doesn't. I have no problem with it. On the bright side, modern tread probably stops better. Tires are consumables. If I don't like them, I'll get different ones next time. Modern 75 series tires do look funny, but they are radial and they are cheaper, so they have that going for them. Your mileage may vary.

All Diamondback whitewalls are indeed put on after the fact, as far as I know. They have tires of their own design (Auburn Deluxe) as well as preexisting tires from other manufacturers. I think any 16s you bought today would be theirs. I doubt truck radials exist to modify. Maybe, but most if not all 16s have disappeared. If they are a few years old it is possible. The Auburn Deluxe was vaporware for several years, and only 600R16 when it first dropped. There were off the shelf 16s available back then. EDIT: 825-16 I have never heard of before either, but I would expect it to be about 8-1/4" wide and 34.2 inches tall. Wow. That's enormous. I suspect you will have to settle for the biggest tallest 16s you can find, and they still won't quite measure up.

O - more King County K - Chelan County DS thru DZ -Douglas County U - Okanogan County G - Grant County etc.

I always wind up with radials. They go straight naturally, and in my experience cause less trouble.

Diamondback Auburn Deluxe 700R15 hits fairly close to your 860-15 at 29.4 inches tall, and about 0.4" wider at 8 inches wide, if you have room for almost an extra 1/2" of width. Blackwall or whitewall. 710R15 (29.2/8.2) and 820r15 (27.9/7.8) also exist. https://dbtires.com/

Is that a hearse?

Look around in the vicinity of the switch for a thermal circuit breaker. I don't know if your car has one, but Buick certainly has used them now and then. They work by heat, so if it has one maybe it is bad, but on the other hand it is possible that it would just need it's points cleaned. Dirty points make excessive heat.

IMHO cut your own, then they will fit and really lay nice. Even original sets are usually a little wonky. I always cut my own, no matter what might be available premade. Agree with @Rockable about the crimper. One from the past that works well looks like this. Circa 1992 this was a no-name that you had to know who to ask to get one. Later on the same crimper was available from MSD and Accel. It really works. If you can find one, get it. I mean exactly this shape, not something similar. Handle colors and branding vary. What you *don't* want is something like the picture below, even if it is from a highly reputable brand like SnapOn, and If I remember correctly I had one of theirs. Note that it is combined with a general purpose stripper/crimper, and that the plug wire die is down below the hinge. Lots of companies have sold this design, at varying levels of quality, and I have encountered it many times. For plug wires it is crap. There is no reason this design needs to be terrible, but it is. Rather than keep the bottom of the terminal curved like it should be, it will kink in 2 places where the lower part of the die contacts. Avoid. Nowdays, I see tools advertised with a big fat compound action mechanism and full width dies, as wide as the crimp area on the terminal. Squeeze once and you are done. Those are probably fine, probably better than my favorite tool in the first pic, but I don't own one so can't say for sure.

Almost nothing. Maybe a rod bearing shell in some specific years? A few bolts?

Well, bigger is better if you want to actually get usable light out of them, and the list of units that were available in the mid 30s is remarkably short. The trouble is the charging system probably cannot keep up with them and the headlights too. That was true of almost all cars of the period. Usually when you see pictures in period of a car with an accessory light, there is only one. Of course once in a while you see a pair but it is rare. I agree this car would look much better without them. Also, I see an accessory signal light switch, but no signal lights. That's kind of weird.

Yeah, that is a known problem. @1950sportman, Nice car! Welcome to the forum.

Width and height is complicated. If I completely understood exactly what happened in the period your DeSoto was made I would explain it. I might have some hints though. Any 15" tire will theoretically go on there, some will be too wide, but within reason you can substitute. Know this though, modern tires are almost always too wide compared to height. It is easy to follow some substitution table and wind up with something that is too wide to go on the rims, or that hits everywhere. If you go narrow enough, the diameter will be too small and leave the engine revving higher, speedometer wrong, etc. "75" series is as good as it gets, and it often isn't good enough. I know you weren't looking at modern, but bear with me for a minute. Understanding those new sizes helps understanding the old ones... err... sort of. Take 205/75R14 for instance. 205mm is the widest spot on the tire, when mounted on whatever rim size they designed the tire on. 75 is the aspect ratio, expressed as a percentage. 75% of 205mm is 153.75mm. 153.75mm is the height of the sidewall down to the bottom of the bead. Convert that to inches (divide by 25.4) and you have 6.05. Take that number twice, once for the top part of the sidewall and once for the bottom, add the rim width, and you have the tire height. 6.05 + 6.05 + 14 = 26.1 inches tall. Then like now, the manufacturers rarely hit it exact, and you have to look in their spec sheets if you want exact numbers. Still, it will be sort of close. For what it is worth, when there is no aspect ratio on a metric tire (155-R-15 or something), assume 80%. Ok, so you see how this aspect ratio stuff is done. In the beginning, lets say 1901 or so, and if you were making some steam cylinder to push a buggylike thing around, all you cared about was the outside diameter so you could multiply by 3.14 and know how far the wheel would roll in a revolution, and how to gear up your buggy. There were no tires to buy because there were no cars. At first tires were hard buggy tires, and when pneumatic tires came along the casings were round, and there was no tread. Aspect ratio was not considered at all, nor was there any reason for anyone to think of it. You could just assume the marked size was the height as well as the width. There are some problems with this. Take a 34x4 tire for instance, as used on a few cars in the mid teens. 34" is the outer diameter, and 4" is the width. Aspect ratio is 100%. The rim size is not specified. 34 - 4 - 4 = 26 inches, so those tires go on a 26 inch rim. 34x4-1/2 on the other hand goes on a 25 inch rim. 34 - 4-1/2 - 4-1/2 = 25 inches. Rim size is never obvious. You have to calculate. Also, by the mid teens tires with tread were becoming popular. Casings were still round, so when you pile some tread rubber on top of a round casing and the aspect ratio could easily be 110%. The idea of using outer diameter for the size probably made sense in 1901. By 1918, not so much. A few years later, by the 20s, they started putting fatter "balloon" tires on cars and specifying rim diameter. Aspect ratio was still probably not considered, and still 100%, but closer to 110% in practice because of thick tread. There were some sizes that might be specified the old way, and maybe the new way from another manufacturer or bought a different year. For instance 30x5 and 500-20 would be exactly the same size tire. That brings us ALMOST to your DeSoto. Common tire sizes of the late prewar and early postwar era are like that, 600-16, 650-16, 700-16, 700-15, etc. These tires have a 100% aspect ratio and are probably more like 110% in practice. ****Warning: Wild speculation follows **** Something happened in 1948. I have seen references to this, but never any solid information. This is how I think it was though, based on something similar that happened in 1965. This is completely wild speculation so take it with about 10 grains of salt. Sizes introduced in 1948 or later had about a 90% aspect ratio. They also had width numbers that were not exact quarters or halves (575, 600, 650, 700, etc.). I'm talking about sizes like 6.70-15, 7.10-15, 7.60-15 and so on. Instead of an aspect ratio of 100% that was 110% in practice, these new sizes would have an aspect ratio that was 90%, and more like 95% or a little more in practice. The old sizes, at least some of them, continued production. This is why 700-15 and 7.10-15 are not nearly as similar as you would expect. **** In 1965, the system changed again. New sizes ended in 5 (like 7.75-14), and were a lower aspect ratio, probably 80 percent. This is not speculation. I have a poster buried somewhere dated 1965 from one of the major tire companies explaining it. It tells you what new sizes to substitute for the old. Since these are lower profile tires, 80% aspect ratio or so, the new numbers are always bigger, and the tires a little fatter to achieve the same height. There were 2 or 3 exceptions on the chart. I do not recall what they were. So now you know. It's confusing as hell, and reproduction tires cover all three periods of time (and more). The manufacturers probably never hit the numbers exact in the first place, and in reproductions sometimes the size of the tires needed and the size of the still existing molds don't quite match. Still, with the information above you can probably look at the advertised width and diameter of repro tires, add it up and figure out what to expect. Also you can see why I thought that Coker's repro Firestone 7.10-15 is so close to 7.60-15. I didn't check any other possibilities. There might be some. A final example, in purely theoretical numbers for some similar looking sizes in 3 different systems. Look at the radical difference in height : 750-15 (introduced pre-1948) aspect ratio 110%(100%) 7.5 inches wide, 8.25 + 8.25 + 15 = 31.5 inches tall 7.60-15 (introduced 1948-1964 period) aspect ratio 95%(90%) 7.6 inches wide, 7.2 + 7.2 + 15 = 29.4 inches tall 7.75-15 (introduced 1965 or later) aspect ratio 80% 7.75 inches wide 6.2 + 6.2 + 15 = 27.4 inches tall

The "C" license plate.

How badly do you need it to say 7..60-15 on the sidewall? Tire manufacturers did not always hit the theoretical size exactly. Also molds for reproduction tires tend to be molds that still exist. The marked size might be off by a lot, and as I recall, large 15s are some of the worst offenders. Check the section width and the overall diameter. Coker/Firestone 7.10 looks real close to a theoretical 7.60 to me for instance.

Yes. With license plates from Spokane County, WA circa 1958-1962.

I'd still like to know how it is powered. Maybe the dash lights? That would be a bit odd, but sensible if they expected it to also light the ashtray.