Bloo

Me neither, but I know enough to be dangerous. Tires never perfectly followed the specifications. I suspect it might be worse today due to a limited number of surviving molds. 700-15 is probably a size dating from the prewar era. I believe the 37 Buick Century had them. In that time, the aspect ratio was probably 100%. Maybe techniaclly 90%? In practice, it was 100%, and when the tire was new with a lot of rubber on it, more like 110%. The tire *should* have been 7 inches wide at it's widest point, when mounted on whatever rim width it was designed for. (7" x 100% x 2) +15" = 29" tall (7" x 110% x 2) +15" = 29.2" tall Let's see what some current Coker 700-15 offerings are like: FIrestone: 29.29" tall B.F.Goodrich: 29.1" tall Lester: Not Specified Something changed in 1948, and I am not sure exactly what. Maybe the aspect ratio changed for newly introduced sizes? Maybe 100%(110%) to 90%(100%)? There was a change in 1965, and sizes introduced after that time are 80% or 82%. I've seen actual documentation of the 1965 change. With very few exceptions, the sizes introduced in 1965 or later end in a "5" (7.75-15, etc.). If I go out on a limb here and assume (lol) that 6.40-15 and 7.10-15 were introduced between 1948-1965, and also assume they have a 90% aspect ratio, but maybe actually 100% with thick new tread, then we get: (6.4" x 90% x 2) + 15" = 26.52" tall (6.4" x 100% x 2) + 15" = 27.8" tall (7.1" x 90% x 2) + 15 = 27.78" tall (7.1" x 100% x 2) + 15 = 29.2" tall What does Coker say about current offerings? Firestone 6.40-15: 27.30" tall B.F.Goodrich 6.40-15: 26.88" tall Excelsior 6.40-15: 26.8" tall Firestone 7.10-15: 28.88" tall B.F.Goodrich 7.10-15: 27.98" tall Goodyear 7.10-15: 29.08" tall So yeah, if we are talking about 7.10-15 to 700-15, basically no difference. Considerable difference from 6.40-15 to 700-15.

Yes. Just mount them upside down.

The rim (light green) needs to slide on the felloe (dark green) from the outside. Never should the rim be as far over the felloe as it is in those pictures. There should never be any reason to take the wheels off unless you want to work on the brakes or wheel bearings. That is the whole point of demountable rims. You take the four wedges off and slide the rim off of the felloe. The rim (light green) and tire come off together. Everything else stays behind, always. A ridge on the rim (light green) will bump against some other ridge on the felloe (dark green) stopping it from going any further in. It is already way further in than should be possible in these pics. I see from @30DodgePanel's post that these rims (light green) have four notches in one of the ridges. We must figure out whether the notched ridge goes in or out. Do your four wedges engage those four notches? You could temporarily take one wedge off of the good wheel to see if there is a notch directly underneath. There has to be some way for the rim (light green) to be locked to the felloe (dark green) to keep the rim (light green) from spinning on the felloe (dark green). If it spins it breaks the valve stem off. Different demountable rim manufacturers accomplished this in different ways. There were hundreds. It is likely that is what the four notches are for. If the four wedges do NOT engage the four notches on the rim (light green), then there must be four tabs that you would be able to see on the felloe (dark green) to engage them, and the notched rib would go in. If the four wedges DO engage the four notches, then the notched ridge must go out. Either way the tire and rim (light green) MUST slide over the felloe (dark green) from the outside, and one of the ridges of the rim (light green) will bottom out on a ridge on the felloe (dark green). It does not tip or anything like that, except maybe a little to get the valve stem started. It slides mostly straight on from the outside until it stops. There cannot ever during this process be elements of the rim (light green) and it's ridges beyond the inner lip of the felloe (dark green) as shown in the pic below.

I don't yet know what the best thing to use as a sealer is. In my world, that is a developing story, but from the view of today it sure looks like I am going to have to figure it out, either that or make some floats out of brass. Brass may also be problematic in ethanol. I have an unnatural hate for nitrophyl. I'm not going to use it.

If you have 1.5v in the radiator you are going to have a really bad time. This isn't new. It's called radiator electrolysis, and will destroy your radiator. Dyke's Encyclopedia covers it. I don't believe in the extended change intervals. I have a strong suspicion that was driven more by service interval requirements for US EPA emission laws than any special capabilities of modern antifreeze. I don't know for sure, but If i were a betting man.... I have been using modern coolants since the mid 1980s. I change it out every 2 or 3 years. People want to blame their radiator rot and aluminum rot on DexCool, but the real problem is people who are uninformed, misinformed by unrealistic claims about coolant life, or too cheap to change their coolant. That was as true in the 80s as it is today. People who did not change their coolant had radiator rot and seepage, corrosion under every hose connection eating the fittings up, and coolant seeping out through the little strings that reinforce the hoses. You could SMELL those cars rolling into the shop. You didn't even need to open the hood. I started out in the mid 80s with some modern formulation a radiator salesman recommended. It was green, and ever skeptical, I didn't believe it was any different than any other coolant. I didn't believe it that is until I had a small leak under the hood. Instead of leaving a dried out green slimy mess that is very difficult to even wash off, it left a little trail of beige powder. On the strength of that alone I was sold, and used it in everything from that point on... until about 1996, when the supplier told me it was discontinued. They said. "GM is making this now and putting it in everything, we weren't making that much of it anyway and there is no reason for us to continue. Go to a GM dealer and ask for DexCool, it's pink, but otherwise about the same formula". Sure enough, if you get a tiny leak, DexCool leaves a little brown powder behind instead of a slimy mess just like that older modern-but-green coolant did. People have been telling me the sky is falling as long as they could see the coolant I use is pink (today it looks more orange). I still have not had any ill effects. All my cars have it except two (and those two have other modern formulas). As an example I have a 91 Geo Metro. It has had DexCool since I bought it in 96 (changed regularly). In 2012 I had the engine, transmission, and dashboard out of it for unrelated reasons, and I figured I'd pull the heater core out and replace it while it was easy. It is brass/copper and it looked brand new, so I put the old one back in. The original radiator is an odd duck with crimped plastic tanks, but the core is copper/brass (not aluminum). It is also doing fine. Another example is my truck (1966), which had a really rotten looking original radiator in it when I got it in the 80s. It's had DexCool in it for decades now (changed regularly), and that radiator is still there, still looking scary as hell, and still doesn't leak. I've never even seen the heater core in it. Literally everything about the heater is broken, so I suppose I will soon. No coolant is running out of the heater box. I keep waiting for all the massive destruction this "DexCool" stuff is supposed to cause, but I'm starting to think all these radiators and heater cores are going to outlive me.

Cork needs to be coated or it will sink. It looks like this gauge will come out of the tank pretty easy, so maybe it's not a big deal. I think the corks if left uncoated will need changing out fairly often. Back in the day, shellac was often used as a sealer on cork floats. That wont work with ethanol blended fuel because ethanol is the solvent for shellac. Several years ago I restored 2 GM fuel senders, one for me (36 Pontiac), and one for @37_Roadmaster_C (37 Buick). These are electrical gauges, with a gauge on the dash and a sender in the gas tank that uses 2 corks. Both of us bought coated new corks from Bobs Automobilia. I put the new corks on @37_Roadmaster_C's unit, but on mine, I wanted to answer the question of whether the corks need sealing or not. Some say cork is a closed cell material, and coating is not necessary. Others say it will take on enough fuel to sink anyway. I took my original corks (from 1936) and sunk them in ethanol blended gasoline for a week. There was no difference in buoyancy, so I put them back on the newly rebuilt sender and put it it in the car. I threw the new Bob's corks in a box and forgot about them. I mentioned this on the VCCA forums. One of the sages over there (sorry, cant remember who offhand) told me it would probably last about 6 months. That is exactly what happened. For the first 6 months it was fine. Then for a little while it would only go to 3/4 tank when full, then 1/2 tank, then less than 1/2 tank... I dropped the tank and took the sender back out. I did not have to sink the corks in gas to tell what the problem was. They felt heavy, not like corks at all. I found the Bob's corks I had previously bought and put them in. Meanwhile, @37_Roadmaster_C's Roadmaster, still under restoration, did not yet have the gas tank reinstalled. A few weeks before the BCA nationals, I took my 36 Pontiac on a shakedown cruise out to Odessa WA. I wanted to make sure it was ready for a road trip and a week in Spokane. The gas gauge started behaving strangely on that trip, and has not worked correctly since. It goes almost to 1/2 full with a full tank. It sure looks like the Bob's coated corks probably sunk. It took about 3 years if so. That's a huge improvement over bare cork, but still too short of a lifespan in my view. I have only tested the dash gauge so far, and it checks good, so I know it is a sender problem, but I don't know for sure if the coated corks have failed. I will know in the next few days. Now @37_Roadmaster_C is holding back on installing his tank until I figure out what happened to the 36 Pontiac's sender. It sure behaves like sunk corks. His tank has brand new Bob's coated corks in it from the sender rebuild several years ago, still unused.

The "rusty" part is a little scary, but it doesn't LOOK rusty. A Floridian once told me that Florida cars are rusted out underneath where it does not show. Any truth to that? I don't know why people get so would up over "ran when parked". That phrase does have meaning, or at least it did 40 years ago. In any event, assuming the 318 listed is the original engine, it is a wideblock 318. 99% chance there would be no problem making that run, and it's a stick! Fun on a budget if the rust isn't too bad.

Sorry it turned out that way. A Snap-On unit capable of 6V is probably worth some effort to fix, but it sounds like this one is pretty bad. I understand why you might not want to continue down that path. I bought some 6V equipment a few years ago, a dwellmeter, a tachometer, and a generator test set (3 separate boxes). So far I have repaired the dwellmeter and calibrated the generator test set, but the tachometer is still resisting my efforts to fix it. For what its worth, a couple years ago @Matt Harwood alerted me to the existence of the Innova 3568/3568a Digital DIalback timing light. It not only works on 6v cars, it works on 6 volts supplied by the car, no extra 12V battery needed. My Snap-On dialback timing light from the 80s is a great product but it does neither of those things. This gets you a timing light and a tachometer. It also gets you "dialback", for checking the advance curve of your distributor. There is no dwell though, you still need a separate meter for that.

When i was in Hershey last year just after labor day, they were so thick in places you would be stepping on them as you walked. Crunch... Crunch... Crunch...

I don't see any advantage at all to running the coil on full voltage. The idea of not doing that was to get full voltage to the coil during starting. System voltage is about 14.7 volts running, and maybe 10.5 or 11 cranking, and worse if the battery is dead and barely chugging the starter over. 10.5 volts (or less) on a system designed to run on 14.7 volts going to make for a really weak ignition system when it is needed most. A coil would work OK designed for full voltage... after all that's how 6 volt cars worked, and for the most part they did fine. it's sure not as good as having a system that runs on a lower voltage (like 9 volts assuming a 14.7v system) and then the voltage jump up a volt from normal instead of going down while cranking.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say "no". The reason is that Chevrolet transmission in the picture has two shift levers and two shift rods on the transmission case like a "normal" 3 speed does, and the shifter appears to have a normal gate, similar to Hurst or whatever. Pontiac transmissions after mid 1935 were not based on any Chevrolet designs. The Pontiac transmissions were closely related to Buick (and Oldsmobile), and I believe in 1950 that would have been a design called "selector", which used one rod and lever to shift all gears, and a cable or small rod to move the gate. Floor shifters for that setup were a kludge at best, and I doubt any have been made in years. There's some pictures of old ones here: https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/1951-oldsmobile-selector-trans-shifter.531247/ Welcome to the forum!

It seems to me that you would at least have to ground the 12v battery to the car, or the meter would not be able to tell whether the points were open or closed. It is also significant that we are talking about a Chevrolet per @Glen Andrews ' question, and a Chevrolet is a negative ground car. That dramatically increases the chance of success. Positive ground would dramatically increase the chances of destroying something. I had one of those Sears analyzers when I was a teenager. Still have it actually, but haven't used it in decades. The extended wires don't surprise me at all. Mine spent a lot of time sitting on air cleaners, core supports, radiators, etc. You wouldn't do that with a restored car. Anyhow, having looked inside it, I am fairly sure positive ground would destroy it, and on the off chance the dwell function did work on positive ground, it would read backwards. The best chance of success using a 12v dwell meter on 6 volt cars would be a 2-wire analog dwell meter with a zero or "set" adjust knob. There is a high probability it would work on both positive and negative ground 6v systems.

For my 1936 I could not get one in the beginning. The closest California Pontiac Restoration could come up with was a used 1937 part. It was close but not right. I was grateful to have it, but I had to use a stepped nylon insulating washer from the hardware store on the inside instead of the inside half of the 1937 part. It got me on the road. Later, I got a whole 1936 distributor with the right parts, but at the moment that stepped washer inner and 1937 outer is still on the car. If Old buicks 2 doesn't have the right thing, one of the following is probably close enough. The first looks more like yours but does not list a hole diameter. The second lists a hole diameter, but looks different as it has only a phenolic washer on the outside of the distributor (no black piece). Note that the parts in the second link are stacked wrong. No metal can contact the distributor housing. https://brillman.com/product/delco-distributor-insulator/ https://brillman.com/product/delco-distributor-terminal-insulator-round-shoulder/

I don't know if you get a better product for your money or not, maybe. The cheapest ones are probably not high quality. It would probably be wise to buy a reputable brand. An expensive coil is not a performance modification. It is comparable to engine chrome. Aftermarket ignition marketing in a bunch of nonsense. Prattling on about "50.000 Volts" or whatever is something you will see a lot of and it is misdirection.

There was a time when Standard products were high grade and their Blue Streak products were the best available. Things have changed. My last set of Standard points (about 4-5 years ago) were of such bad quality they were completely unusable. Caveat Emptor.

195/80r16 if you have a time machine laying around. The only close modern radial options for 600-16 are out of production. They were not low cost even when they were readily available. I believe you are stuck with reproduction bias (Coker, Lucas, Universal), Bias look radials (Diamondback, Coker), or speed-rated bias blackwalls (Blockley). Welcome to the forum!

And I can't find any vintage reference to Garfield. The name must be recent.

Good question. If the picture is any indication, they are identical to Allstate (Sears) tires. They were calling them Garfield when I last looked, not Coker-Garfield. Garfield is a period brand isn't it? Now you have me wondering if they were rebranded, and if Garfield was really a thing. I think it was. The Allstates they look identical to have drawn some criticism in forums for having less than perfectly bright white whitewalls. That might be true, but they looked OK to me, and drove about like any other bias ply tires. As far as I know 650-16 is the only size the Garfields are currently reproduced in. If I were buying any 650-16 Bias, I would probably pick Garfields over the other 650-16 offerings. I do like the way they look. I always wind up on radials though. Your mileage may vary.

That is generally a bad policy with tube based equipment. It ain't rocket science. If you turn it on, and there's not a dead short in it the tubes are going to light up. They're like light bulbs. It doesn't tell you anything. The speaker might or might not crackle. That doesn't tell you anything either. The vibrator might hum. A good sign if so, but doesn't necessarily indicate it is good, and vibrators that don't start can sometimes be revived. If the tubes don't light up, it tells you there may be a problem with the switch. A switch failure doesn't really tell you anything about the radio. Capacitors are relatively cheap, and available from electronic parts houses like Mouser, Digi-Key and Newark. On the other hand, burning up expensive hard to find parts (like vibrators and power transformers) is easy and quick to do. At least replace the buffer capacitor. There's no way that could still be any good.

Some of those fuses are probably SFE series and are the wrong length and don't fit right. If the amp ratings are right, there is nothing electrically wrong with it as long as a good connection is made, but mechanically it looks like it might fall apart. SFE series fuses vary in length according to the amp rating. Check the manual, and then get some AGC series fuses in the correct amp ratings. AGC series fuses of various amp ratings will be the same length, and they will be the correct length for those fuseholders. A few of the SFE ones *might* be the right length to fit if they are in the higher current ranges. Match up the amps to whatever the manual says for each particular fuseholder. Get AGC for replacements of any that are burned out or don't mechanically fit. Check continuity with a multimeter on any fuses you plan to put back in. Looking at them to see if the fuse wire is still intact isn't good enough. A peculiarity of glass fuses is that bad connections at the fuseholder can unsolder an end of the fuse wire inside the fuse. They can be bad and still look good.

I probably wouldn't have said that as there was only one type of P-15 4 door sedan, but in my mind, it's not wrong considering the body has a lot of slope in the back and there is no trunk bump.

Battery chargers depend largely on the battery to decide how much current will be drawn, as long as it is below the maximum. A battery that is really low will hardly draw any current at first, because the internal resistance of a dead battery is very high. When the battery starts to get a charge, the internal resistance gets lower, and the battery draws more current. When the battery is getting full, the battery voltage gets closer to the charger voltage, and the current reduces again. Lower >> Higher >> Lower As others suggegsted, If you are charging it on 2 amps, leave the charger on for a really long time.

At least one version of that is reproduced, and I think it is even the right one for 37 and later Pontiac. I haven't tried it though so I can't say for sure it is the right one. Look around on brillman.com .

Model T. Generally speaking, T's with a radiator that shape are 1915 or earlier, maybe a few in early 1916. The radiators are all the same shape over that period, but not all exactly the same. A real model T expert could probably date it closer.

It doesn't look that bad to me, although it would be too much for me to take on now (never mind that it's in MD). It's better than a lot of project cars that get posted on here that should be free. I really like these P-15 4 door sedans. I'll have one someday....