Bloo

Wow! What nice work! I gather this must be Hupp "R"? Is this for the same car the 3D printed levers were for? What is the rim diameter?

Yeah, that's the Fulton one. 👍

Yes. As @wayne sheldon mentioned, maybe just one. To expand on what @Andy J said, it's a glass or more likely polycarbonate prism that mounts low on the dash or windshield rim. There were 2 common styles, and the late GM one, which is clear, is reproduced for sure. I believe the earlier GM one that does not have a smooth surface is also reproduced, but I am less sure of that. Fulton had one for use with their visors. The Fulton ones are not reproduced as far as I know, but there are mini-replicas of it that stick on with a suction cup. Not for restoration obviously, but as you noted there are some vehicles with the top of the windshield too low even though there is no visor.

So I've got a loaded question for you guys..... How fast can you go before you damage something? Like denting the roof or bending the visor or breaking the windshield? I've been 70mph. That was with a factory visor on a 53 Belair. Those were mounted pretty solidly, and the windshield was one piece. Some less streamlined visors like Fultons seem to have pretty spindly mounts. I have even seen some visors mounted to the little chrome divider piece in a 2-piece windshield. So, how fast can you go before all hell breaks loose? I have a feeling some of you know the answer.

I second that.

If it's like Pfeil's pics, then yeah, it just pulls off. Maybe you can twist to get it moving.

What an outstanding thread! Please keep it up. Thank you.

Not an annoyance. We're here to help. Welcome!

It twists. 1/4 turn to remove. It looks about like a gas cap on the underside, with a similar retention mechanism. It should look like one of these (39 pictured, but these 2 types were the same for many years). Second pic is an optional deluxe breather. Cap is the same for both I believe. I wouldn't expect it to be that tough, but If it is really stubborn, you might want to take the filler tube off of the engine and go after it on the bench with a couple of strap wrenches or something. Horsing around on the tube while it is still on the engine could easily damage it. If you take it off you'll see why. It probably needs washing out anyway. I don't know what the skinny version filler tube has in it for a breather filter, but there is probably something. The fat one is full of mesh like a breather cap and definitely needs washing out. Look for a set screw with a locknut at the bottom of the tube. Remove it and the tube pulls out of the block. The downside is If you take it out, you'll need to replace the seal at the bottom. Often a hardware store O ring can be made to work if you can find one that fits tightly, but it's a little fiddly to put in. Maybe put it in the block first, and use silicone spray to work the tube in. Otherwise maybe a gasket company like Olson's might have one individually, or maybe you could find some cork about 3/16" thick and cut a ring like the original one from it.

Bent?! How is that even possible? Anyhow I hope he finds one. I own an SA-25 and over the years I have found documentation for my car and any others before production moved to South Bend to be quite thin on the ground. I hope I am wrong. More things get discovered as time goes on. If there is any sort of blueprint history for the pre-South Bend cars I would love to hear about it. Please post what you find out.

I had one of those low pressure stickshift 53s, and it did well by me. Technically high pressure is a lot better, but If I still owned that car I would not be looking to change it. For what it's worth, Powerglide cars had low pressure 235s from whenever Powerglide was introduced (50 maybe?) through 1952. I don't know for sure if that is the same crank, but it probably is. I'd ask over on https://vccachat.org/ . Somebody might have one.

Electromechanicai *IS* the old type. Napa's page is wrong. It says electromechanical, but the flasher clearly says "electronic" on the housing in great big letters. Electronic is the new type. So much WTF in that NAPA page. Anyhow, there is nothing wrong with the idea of an electronic flasher. The proof is in whether it works when you hook 2 and then 4 bulbs to it. It will either work or it won't.

He might have been right. It might be fine. You'll know when you bench test it. I am not against electronic flashers, just have no experience with those particular ones.

550 *might* be the number of the common American 3 pin 12 volt one. If yours doesn't work normally with two and or 4 bulbs hooked up, maybe try one of these: https://www.napaonline.com/en/p/NF_550 It looks like it is good for 1-4 bulbs, so should work with that switch of yours in a 4-bulb system, 2 when signalling, 4 when using 4-ways. There's a bunch of Alfa's in the application list, but a bunch of American cars too, so I was probably wrong about that detail.

Those are both electronic, and I am not sure how they are supposed to react. That application list for the NAPA one is odd. Mostly imported cars, and then a few specific Jeep and Desoto models? Huh? That's just plain weird. Also a bunch of Alfa Romeos are included. Offhand I don't think those interchanged with the American flashers, but I am not sure.

Yes, assuming it is a traditional thermal flasher. If it is something else, I have no idea. It probably won't flash until there is a load. It's working. The only reason it needs grounding is for the pilot to work. That should be fine, as you can see from the contacts, they do the same thing. It might depend on what bulbs you are using and what the flasher is? On a traditional flasher, no ground is needed, and the current drawn by the bulbs causes the flashing. Back in the day, they had to be for the correct number of bulbs. Two was typical, to run a 4 bulb system one side at a time. When one bulb would burn out, the flasher might flash at the wrong speed or not flash at all. The upside was it let you know something was amiss. 6 bulb system? Different flasher. Trailer? Different flasher. Later on they made "heavy duty" flashers that were far less sensitive to bulb count and would usually work no matter what. That's probably what you already have, and definitely what you are going to need because your 4-way setup doubles the bulb count when you turn it on. Early 4-way systems used different switching and a separate flasher because otherwise it probably wouldn't flash at the right speed, if at all. The short answer here is that for a useful test it needs to be two signal, brake, or backup light bulbs. Some 1156 and/or the big filaments of 1157, 1034 etc. should work assuming this is a 12 volt system. All bulb sockets must be grounded. Don't use any dim tail light filaments or small parking light bulbs, otherwise its possible you will get random results. Four bulbs should also work (like 4-ways). This should work whether the switch is in the circuit or not.

I didn't know that but I am not surprised. It is true of most rearend designs that when the ratio changes enough, the case has to change. The case in a differential is the spinning part the ring gear mounts to. The taller the gears get, the bigger the pinion gets. At some point the ring gear would be too thin if manufactured to fit, and so a case with the ring gear flange further away from the pinion is needed. If you want to know and you don't want to take it apart there is a way. The torque tube complicates things but it is not impossible. You need two people some tape, and maybe a small mirror Take all the spark plugs out and jack up one (only one) rear wheel. Put the transmission in high gear. The first guy rotates the tire slightly to take all the slop out of the gearing. I usually do this in the direction the wheel would be turning to drive forward. With the slack out of the gearing, the first guy puts a tape mark at the top of the tire. With the first guy still holding tire with the mark straight up, the second guy puts a tape mark on top of the harmonic balancer or front pulley. The first guy, with the slack still taken up, slowly turns the tire two full turns while the second guy watches the balancer and counts turns. The number of full turns of the balancer plus the clock position of the mark on the balancer tell the story. 3 turns and stopped at about 7 or 8 o clock? 3.6-1. 3 turns and stopped somewhere around 10 or 11 o clock? 3.9-1. 4 turns and stopped at one or two o clock? 4.11-1. 4 turns and stopped at about 4 or 5 o clock? 4.44-1. It's kind of a pain but I'd rather do it than take a rearend apart. In some cases you might need a mirror to see the stopping point. Of course you need to know what the possibilities are for the gear ratio, and we do in this case. It would still give you a pretty close guess even if you didn't know that.

All good advice here, but @JACK M's post really nails it.

This is general advice, not specific to 54 Chrysler. I have found that many power steering fittings are special. I would get the hydraulic shop to use the old fittings. Back in my auto repair days, I used to do that a lot in cases where a hose wasn't available, or where the aftermarket supplied a multi-application hose that didn't fit right. The quality was better than factory. I believe they used some sort of a ferrule to attach to the tubing section of the old fitting. This was not a plumbing ferrule, something different. That did not sound confidence inspiring the first time I had it done, but I had a bunch of them done subsequently and they never leaked. I own a 70 Mercury that was my father's car. The power steering hoses were remade by a hydraulic shop in Seattle in 1992 using the old fittings. To this day they have not even seeped a little like factory hoses often do. There is dry road dust all over them.

On my 1936, I am using an industrial belt to get an old style wrapped belt. Gates does make a modern belt with an outer band and a notched bottom like modern car belts. In the industrial belts, I was using a "B" series belt, but found that after even a tiny bit of wear it was contacting the bottom of the pulley and causing slippage. I switched to a "C" series, and it appears to ride too high in some of the pulleys, but on closer inspection the pulleys may be designed for the belt to run like this. It's not been on long enough to know how it is working out. I would say though, if you are having slipping problems, look to be sure the belt is not bottoming in the pulleys. Another thing I became aware of at an Early Times Chapter Flathead Reunion about 3 years ago was a possible problem with the belt angle. One presenter at the tech session, who I believe is a forum member here, passed around two flathead Pontiac water pump pulleys with different belt angles! The "wrong" one was causing slippage. I found no evidence of multiple belt angles on cars that far back, and cannot explain why that pulley exists, but it does exist. I held it in my hand and sighted the angle compared to a normal one.

It depends on the pump. If it's a thumper, it should slow down and stop when the float valve closes. If not, probably not.

Early 1980s

I am almost sure not, and probably not matching serial numbers either. There would have been a frame serial, and an engine serial on most cars and trucks. The reason I say almost is that Oldsmobile did have matching numbers in the early 30s. A forum member here restored a 32 Olds, and it did. That is extremely odd for the time, and I don't think you'll see it on the GMC. Whether the engine number or the frame number was used for titles and registration varied by state. It sounds insane to use the engine number, but it was pretty common back then.

In the GMC pickups in 1936 they used a 213ci Oldsmobile flathead six. I think that is what I am looking at here too.

Yes, "L" (load) on the flasher goes to the signal switch (yellow). Make sure the housing is grounded or your pilot won't work.