Bloo

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.

This looks like the extra wire is for the same function as the extra wire in the switch @joe_padavano posted. It "shares" filaments in parking lights. That can be ignored if you don't plan on implementing the feature. Your old switch would not have had it. There are 2 ways it could connect. No difference between the two as far as I can tell. In all cases, Black goes to the flasher "P" terminal. Yellow - Power from flasher Orange - Power from brake light switch Brown - Side "A" rear Red - Side "A" front Blue - Side "B" rear Green - Side "B" front White - Ignore (this would be connected to parking light circuit power if sharing parking lights) OR.... since both the front and rear implement a "share" function, it could be like this: Yellow - Power from flasher White - Power from brake light switch Red - Side "A" rear Brown - Side "A" front Green- Side "B" rear Blue - Side "B" front Orange - Ignore (this would be connected to parking light circuit power if sharing parking lights) I think they meant the first option because I doubt they put in an extra large wire (orange) for a feature they expected almost no one to use. I used "Side A" and "Side B" because I am not sure which is right and which is left. That could be determined by turning the switch on. Edit: @37_Roadmaster_C beat me to it. Yeah, like that.

Yeah, i don't recall ever seeing one big wire. It can't hurt, but probably isn't necessary.

As long as we are talking 727 its the year of the transmission that matters. Anything 62-65 has 2 cables, anything 66-up has a linkage, no matter where the shifter is located or what it looks like. I never saw an exception, and I doubt any exist. If any of those dash shifters in A-vans and motorhomes were still used in 1966 or later, I would expect them to be very different because the transmission does not expect a cable. The 65 is the first year with a slip yoke, and the last year with a rear pump, so the last one that can be push started. 1966 727 has linkage. It has a slip yoke. It interchanges with all the 67 and later later 727s, with one glaring difference. The torque converter splines are like the 1962-65 727s. This doesn't matter unless you want to put a different torque converter on. Most aftermarket converters fit 1967 and later. One other thing on the off chance you didn't know. You need the right transmission for your engine series. The A/LA bellhousing bolt pattern is different than the B/RB one, and since the bellhousing is cast onto the case, you cannot change it.

More current if it is the flasher wire, but only 2 bulbs vs 1. You usually don't see that. The brake switch wiere also feeds 2 bulbs. Maybe 4 bulbs at at time for the orange wire if there is a 4-way flasher function?

Post pics if its not obvious. I'll try to figure it out.

I don't know why 8 wires. There are 2 types of switch, 4 wire and 7 wire. They don't always have exactly 4 or 7 wires. Despite making no sense, that terminology has become ubiquitous. Given this one has 8 wires, I am guessing it is a 7 wire switch. It probably isn't a 4 wire.... 6v vs 12v does not matter at all beyond changing the pilot light bulb or bulbs on units that have lights inside. Ignore colors completely. They don't mean a thing. In the IT industry they say the nice thing about standards is there are so many to chose from... If you can find instructions for this particular make and model of switch, then I guess colors mean something. Otherwise, you are on your own on that front. That all sounds correct. A traditional thermal flasher won't flash without a load, or may flash at the wrong speed with the wrong number of bulbs connected. You should be able to make them all turn on though. You should have 2 wires for right and 2 wires for left. This is the main difference between 4 wire and 7 wire. 7 wire is capable of sharing the brake lights with the signal lights, and so you have separate wires for front and rear. There is a wire in the bundle somewhere that i supposed to come from the brake light switch. If you make that one hot with the signal switch "off", both rear light wires should become hot. When you turn the signal switch on, one of them should go out, the side you turned on. This is how the share feature works. If everything was hooked up, it would have disconnected the rear bulb on one side from the brake lights, and connected it to power from the flasher. The front signals are completely separate switching, and simple. You turn a side on, the switch connects that side's front bulb to the flasher. My guess is you will probably have to take it apart to figure it out. Another guess I have is that the extra (8th) wire is a ground. You should be able to see for sure if you have it open. Most 7-wire switches ground through the mounting, and one of the most common problems is the pilot not working because it does not have a good ground.

Backup lights were rare in those days. They usually used a toggle switch under the dash. I did look the situation over somewhat thoroughly when I had my transmission apart. I was thinking of a reverse lockout switch for a Laycock overdrive, but I never really pursued it.

Probably if you are willing to custom make the parts. I suspect it is not easy. You didn't say which transmission. On the "small Buick" transmission, also used with slight changes in Pontiac and Olds, the shift rods are in the case, and the holes they used for access to initially bore them are covered with softplugs. The trouble is the tailshaft casting covers the softplugs halfway. Reverse is engaged with a shift rod pushed back, so it is theoretically possible. It looks pretty involved because of clearance issues. It also might(?) be possible to bore through the top of the case(?) just behind the cover(?) and access the shift rod there. Floor clearance might be an issue too. I'd look at mid-late 70s Chrysler 3-pin neutral safety switches. The two outer pins are a backup light switch. These thread into a hole and have a ball tip that is meant to be banged on by linkage inside the transmission.

66 and later use linkage, not cable. One rod does everything. That didn't exist in 1965 as far as I know. All the cable shift 727s have 2 cables. Pushbuttons have a separate lever for park, that's true, but 1965 shifters, column or console, do not. The shifter operates both cables and the driver cannot tell he is operating two cables. A 1964 console shifter is like this too, and probably back to 1962 if the console shifter existed that far back. The shift cable enters the transmission case roughly where the left front corner of the pan is. It has a round adjuster thing on it with a bunch of holes. The park cable attaches to a rectangular thing on the bottom of the transmission behind the pan.

Yep, those are one year only parts. 1965s 727s were normally column shift. Pushbuttons ended in 1964. The 1965 setup is called a "half cable", as the two shorter-than-normal cables go to the steering column instead of the dash. One cable is for park, the other one does everything else. I believe you could connect the steering column shifter and short cables from 1965 Chrysler product to a 62-64 727, or some 62-64 pushbuttons and long cables to a 1965 727. The 1965 727 is still unique though. It has a modern style slip yoke at the back for a conventional universal joint, while the 62-64 727 has a flange at the back for a sliding block u-joint. Console shifters existed in some models in 1965, but those would have used cables like all the others. 1966 and later 727s shift with a single linkage instead of 2 cables, so no interchangeability there. EDIT: looks like the shifter is on the dash in that model. I still expect cables and a slip yoke since it's 1965. It's probably closely related to the console shifter (Sport Fury, Satellite, etc.). Good luck on your search.

Yes. That's the same setup as all the rest. Thanks for confirming. Too bad the flex tube won't reach the little hole up on top of the manifold. In the pics it looks like it would almost do it. How does it attach at the carb end? I'm pretty sure ordinary bundy tubing will work. When installed, the tube is not straight, there is a bit of an "S" bend, so expansion/contraction shouldn't be too much of an issue.

That might not be cut. Have a good look at your exhaust manifold. That looks like the same tubing used on my 1936 Master Six. I don't recall if it is truly flexible, or if it is armor over bundy tubing. Either way, it can rust out and break right at the manifold and I suspect that is what has happened here. If so, you can probably fashion a little tip or sleeve from bundy tubing to repair it, maybe even invisibly. The method the tube attaches to the choke housing end is different from my 36, but at the exhaust manifold end it might very well be the same. From 1936 through the end of flathead production, the manifold end connections (choke stoves) are all the same. I suspect 1935s with automatic choke are the same too, but I am not sure. On 1936 and later, there is a dead air space where the exhaust passages in the manifold turn down in the center, but the top of the exhaust manifold is flat. There is a plate with 2 air intake holes attached to the inside with 2 machine screws to cover the airspace. It is located between the exhaust manifold and the block where it is hard to see. In the top of the manifold there is a hole that goes to the dead air space. The little tube presses in that hole, and draws hot air (not exhaust) from there.

I got that 414s bit from an old Carter sheet dated 1940. On second look, it is a Canadian sheet, apparently for US models though, since some of the other sheets with it specify Canadian models. It is also a 1946 reprint. They probably altered that later for the reprint. The superseded carbs (413s, 414s) are in the column the price should be in.

Those numbers sound more like the catalytic converter was getting a little tired than any sort of engine problem. Was that a new sudden thing? Could the hose have been disconnected? Those cars always had some oil film in the air cleaner even when new, just not usually liquid oil until the engine got old and worn. Olds V8s didn't get old and worn as quickly as most other V8s of the period. PCV systems designs are limited by the amount of available air and cannot ventilate 100% of the time. Oil vapors are going to come out of the breather part of the time when the PCV cannot keep up. It is unavoidable. After GM (and others) put the breather up inside the air cleaner, that is where the oil film went instead of out on the valve cover. The idea was that when the PCV could not keep up, the overflow of vapors would get sucked in through the carburetor and burned. It worked, but as the engine wore and the blowby got worse, the PCV kept up less and less of the time, and liquid oil would wind up in the air filter housing. Yes, because compression and oil are controlled by different rings. The opposite is more likely though.

Cold winters here (Eastern/Central WA), and while we don't get as cold as the Canadian prairies, it does get really. really cold. We have never had -30F here, but if that was -30C it equals -22F, and we have had that. Hardly ever, maybe once. -18F has happened rather a lot here over the years. I don't drive 6V cars in the winter anymore, but that isn't because they wont start, it is because they have been spraying some kind of "de icer" chemical on the roads. They claim it isn't salt. Whatever it is, it ate the license plate on my modern car. I drove 6v cars in the 80s here in the winter. One was a 53 Belair. It had an oversize battery, but probably didn't need it. I had a 51 Nash that was my main winter car back in college days. It went like crazy in the snow, even on the el-cheapo "Federal Metric" Saab tires I had on it. The heater was outstanding. It had a little group 1 battery, and I was never stuck with a dead battery in that car, ever. Once I had a 6 volt Nash, I couldn't give any of my friends with dead 12V batteries jump starts anymore, so there's that. For a little while I was carrying a 12V battery in the trunk just for that purpose, but jumper cables don't work so well when you don't have a charging system to help. Sometimes it worked, but mostly it was a waste of time. One thing that is getting lost here is that a lot of 12V cars refuse to start in extreme cold weather. Maintenance is key no matter what the voltage is. Admittedly, it is more critical with 6 volts because the current is double, and the same fraction of an Ohm does twice the damage if everything were equal. 6V cars tend to have low compression ratios though, making them easier to crank, so the difference in real life is probably somewhat less.

1935 Pontiac Eight, early. I recall seeing somewhere in Pontiac's own literature that there was a change during the run. It was probably to add an anti-percolation valve, and Carter's parts list seems to back that up. Carter's 1940 index says 298s for engine 1026 and up, and 315s for engine 12007 and up. That's ambiguous, but I'll speculate that 298s was used on 1026-12006, and that 315s adds an anti-percolation valve. Carter had superseded both to 414s by 1940. Without digging any deeper, I am going to speculate that 414s is a WA-1, not a W-1.

All kidding aside, I think I know the answer to this one, but I'll let others with closer knowledge respond. I will say that I doubt a perfect system exists in this club or anywhere else....

12 volt systems were not new in the early 1950s. Several makes had 12 volt starting and charging systems in the mid teens, Hupmobile, Studebaker, and Dodge Brothers among them. Dodge Brothers were the last holdout, sticking with an old fashioned 12 volt system well into the 1920s, but eventually they too had to switch to the newer, more modern, more robust 6 volt system.

An exhaust leak under the hood could sure do it.... One primary and one secondary as a team feed four cylinders. On a dual plane manifold, that's usually the front and the rear cylinders on one side, and the two inner cylinders on the other side.

A typical setup used in dual plane manifolds. There's a little confusion about rich and lean here. Lean exhaust stinks worse than rich exhaust. It won't poison you like rich exhaust can, but it stinks far worse. Your eyes will burn. The main difference between rich and lean exhaust is the amount of Carbon Monoxide (CO). There is a lot of CO in rich exhaust and almost none in lean exhaust. Anything that causes a misfire will cause excess HC (unburned gas) in the exhaust. This could be a mixture problem, rich or lean, or a spark or mechanical problem. As for the stink, any car with no catalytic converter will stink up the occupants clothes badly if exhaust is getting in the car. Even a perfectly tuned engine will do that. Look for rust hole in the trunk floor, or rear quarters, bad trunk gasket, lights mounted without gaskets, etc. The location where the exhaust pipe exits the rear of the car, and the way the tip is aimed can even matter. With the windows up and the vents closed, the cabin is under fairly low pressure. Meanwhile the exhaust is swirling around in the low pressure area made by the tail of the car is it moves through the air, and pelting the back of the car. The tumbling exhaust behind the car is just waiting to come in through any hole it can find. From the late 70s on, many car manufacturers had a little bit of outside vent open and ran the heater fan on low speed to pressurize the cabin, even when the heater and A/C are shut off. Not a perfect way to keep the exhaust out, but better than nothing I guess. No doubt this was done to prevent carbon monoxide poisoning. As for water in the exhaust... that's normal. You might not always see it due to heat, but water (H2O) is one of the chemicals you get the most of when you burn gasoline. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is another. If you could theoretically burn gasoline perfectly, all you would get is carbon dioxide, water, and whatever inert gases were in the air used to burn the fuel, mostly Nitrogen. That water is why your exhaust rusts out. It is also why V8 cars with dual exhaust and a heat riser rust out one side. One side tends to collect water and the other does not, due to the difference in heat. Some car owners have reported more visible water when using ethanol blended fuel. I'm not sure why that is, or if it's really true on more than a few cars. It might be. It is difficult to nail down because in the old days some cars dripped a lot more visible water out the tailpipe than others, with no obvious reason why. The water is present in all cases. It was always there.

That pic is quite confusing. I think the fuel line is really the one to the left of his hand.

Is it possible they also changed the curve? I don't doubt their advice. All a Pertronix does though is replace a mechanical switch with a transistor. That by itself won't change the engine's timing needs.

European standard headlights have a kickup at the right (see the picture I posted earlier in the thread). There are opposite versions with a kickup on the left for the UK, who were until recently in the EU. Those work nicely in countries who drive on the same side as the UK does, like Australia, etc. Note the arrow cast in the glass on the picture of the Autopal light.