Bloo

Air filters were almost unheard of in 1915. The chassis was probably built without one.

Dwell is simply the number of degrees the points stay closed for. A dwell meter should go to zero degrees with the points open because there is no dwell. It should go to the maximum number of distributor degrees between cylinders when the points are closed, because points that stay closed have all of the possible dwell. That is 60 degrees on a 6 cylinder engine. It's a quick sanity check to see if your dwell meter is doing what it should.

Not really. In the past glues have been fairly worthless for edges. Its OK for folded over edges on door panels and stuff like that. Tacked edges generally are in places (like headliners) where you need to adjust the exact tension and then tack or staple it down. You'd never get a good look with glue even if it would work. Glues might be better now than when I was doing this (1980s) but you would still need to tack or staple for the same reason. Welcome to the forum!

Are the parts rough and galled? If so they might need to be replaced. I would try some super slippery synthetic grease (I keep Redline CV-2 around for things like this, but it wouldn't need to be that). Beyond that inspect the parts for damage. As for your old account, there was a change, and that is why it is asking for email now. The only difference is you enter the email address you signed up with instead of your username now. I don't think it matters if you still have or use the email address, as long as you can remember what it was. The password is the one you used with your username to log in here (it's not any sort of password for the email address). If you have forgotten your password and want to fix it, @Peter Gariepy can probably help.

This is one of the best threads ever! Thank you for taking us all on the ride.

Where is it located now and what is the price? I can't take this on now anyway, but I am interested in one day owning something like this. You have definitely piqued my curiosity.

LOL I don't mind at all. Its always a bit odd though to be thinking of typing a response only to discover I am already in the thread.

I'm not sure it is really like what is shown in the cutaway. I have used these to combat vapor lock, and it helps a little but not a lot. Buick and Chrysler used forms of this. In addition to the one pictured, there is also a version with the third port parallel to the fuel ports, and there is also a 3/4 sized one for Chrysler K-cars. These are for a very specific problem, and @carbking has an explanation posted on his webiste somewhere, but I can never find my way back to it so I can't link it here. I'll get back to that specific problem in a minute. I have never heard that one of these filters had to be in a specific orientation, and I don't really believe it does. When I used them I believed I was separating vapor, and tried to get the return (small) port up high in the system, but that doesn't really make any sense. Also the factory systems usually didn't have the filter at a high point. If you are "vapor locked", and the engine is not running because it has no fuel, the float valve is wide open. Vapor can already escape. No, the important part of the 3 port filter is that .062" jet and the return line, which on most factory installations I have seen goes all the way back to the gas tank and dumps fuel there. To duplicate that you need an extra vent port on the gas tank. You can use this with a mechanical fuel pump, at least if the pump is big enough, and in many cases it is. You just have to be able to supply everything the engine needs plus the .062" "leak". Many factory installations used a mechanical fuel pump. I don't believe it would be practical to use this with a vacuum tank, but I have not tried. Some fuel is always circulating, and the mechanical fuel pump diaphragm always moves a little, rather than staying stationary during periods when the float valve is closed. It may carry some heat out of the fuel pump and back to the tank. This is why I believe it helps a little (not a lot). It does not give you the huge benefit you would expect if you were "letting the vapor escape" (like I thought many years ago). You can also use this with an electric pump, or with an electric pump pushing through the diaphragm pump. That last version is not recommended if you are going to leave the electric pump running all the time, but I have done it when using a brand new diaphragm and a rear-mounted electric pump. It helps a little more, because if fuel boils anywhere, such as in the line under the car, the pump keeps forcing more fuel in and any vapor is forced out the .062 jet into the return line, or at least that is what I was hoping for. Did this solve the problem? No, but it helped a little bit more than the 3 port filter by itself. As I recall it gained me about 5 degrees F in ambient temperature before the car would stop running completely. The real reason those filters exist is to solve a specific hot-soak problem. On Buicks, they are typically used on air conditioned cars. When a mechanical fuel pump boils in a hot soak situation (you just shut the car off on a really hot day), and the carburetor is full, and the float valve is shut, the pressure in the fuel pump rises dramatically. The pressure cannot escape back to the tank because of the inlet check valve in the pump, so it overpowers the closed float valve, opening it, and blows whatever liguid gas is in the fuel line and filter into the carburetor bowl. The fuel in the carburetor then runs over through any hole it can find (usually the main discharge tubes) and floods the engine.

Do you mean a strip with tacks (to invisibly hold down an edge) or do you mean cardboard stock about 1/2" square (to be captured in a cavity in the body to to tack or staple to)? When I was doing this kind of work in the early 80s the former was available everywhere. The latter I never saw.

If Buick wants that screwball sequence, I guess I would use it. I'm surprised to see it. Whatever you do don't bring them all up at once. Go in about 3 stages, and all the way to spec the third time around.

Nice job, they look great! 👍 You don't even need a kit. I've been zinc plating in a 5 gallon bucket for quite a while now. Like this: https://thefactoryfiveforum.com/showthread.php?14392-DIY-Zinc-Plating-for-Donor-Nuts-and-Bolts

Evian. Whenever I see that I imagine a giant ship, steaming across the ocean from France, full of water.

I think Oregon tried to stem the tide and save full service. It didn't really work as they probably expected. Across the border in WA we got self service gas in about 1972. Full service died out almost immediately. In the late 80s there were still a very few traditional gas stations around that had full service on one or 2 pumps at a higher price. A few would pay the difference. Traditional gas stations with service bays are all gone in WA now, most of them decades ago. What Oregon got for their trouble was the some kid paid to pump gas at the mini mart and do nothing else. To be fair, it did slow the change a little. I have seen at least 3 traditional gas stations with service bays in Oregon still open in the last 5 years or so. My neck just about snapped when I saw the first one. I think it was in Astoria.

https://www.pontiacparts.net/ But, call them. If you can't find it on the site, that doesn't mean much, especially in recent times. Nice cars! 👍

A tad? It was like having a knocking lawnmower under the hood. Sure did cool good though (on r12).

1936 is too early for torque wrenches. In some cases (like my 36 Pontiac) the engine design changed not a lot until 1941 when torque specs started to appear, and later specs are usable. The trouble is in your case, I believe the 1936 40 was the last year of that particular engine design, wasn't it? If you could verify that the bolts are the same size and thread as a 1941 or later model you could just use those torque specs. If not, there are tables of torque specs based on the size, thread, and grade of the bolts. Metallurgy improved drastically during the war. When guessing on prewar bolts, if you don't know for sure the bolts are really good steel, it is usually best to assume they are a soft or weak grade (grade 2 maybe) when picking a line on the torque tables. They stopped making cars in early 42 due to the war, and didn't make any more until 1946, so if it is worded like that, the higher spec would have began in 1946. My guess is they just had better bolts after the war. If it turns out that the bolts in a 1946 model are still the same size a 1941-42 model, then almost certainly better bolts were the reason.

Some GM cars had material that resembled impregnated cardboard. In a pinch I would use wood like @Rusty_OToole suggested.

i wish I could answer your question. Have you tested it? The only reason I ask is that sounds like a sender or wiring or ground problem. Hope you get a good answer about a source. California Pontiac Restoration maybe. Last I heard they were trying to get out of the NOS parts business but maybe they still have something.

All kidding aside, it probably was heavily influenced by Pininfarina. The 1952 redesign of the bathtub and Rambler was done by Pininfarina.

Good question. Brake cleaner, compressed air, and a prayer I suppose. Mostly when I have needed bends that tight it has been in fuel lines but not always. Heat would help, but I never do it because I am afraid I would melt the sand, and how would you get THAT out? Also how would you know if you got it all out? A sand bend on a long line would be a giant pain for all sorts of reasons. I have one good bender and a collection of cheapies, and also a fancy pliers thing for tight bends that doesn't work at all. In my opinion, when replacing all the brake lines on a car (something we almost never do up here in WA), you want a big pile of benders. Borrow every el-cheapo bender you can get your hands on. No one bender can do everything, no matter how high quality it is, especially if there are compound bends. Usually a pile of benders, one really good one and a bunch of cheap ones will get the job done. I have only resorted to sand a few times. I think If I were sand bending a line now, I would braze a nut on one end for a bolt that would fit inside the tubing, so I could retighten the sand at will. I am a bit skeptical but intrigued by @EmTee's idea of using liquid. I want to try it. If that works, it solves a bunch of problems. The last time I did it I substituted salt for the sand. It worked, but don't do that. It was a mistake. It crushes and is almost impossible to keep tight. The "sand" only works if it is really tight. Salt made a lot of unnecessary work.

Because nothing is perfect, and on distributors that do not have that adjustment, you have to set one set of points with the gap (or dwell) a little wrong to get the ignition timing right on all cylinders. If you have the adjustment, you can adjust the timing for one set after the fact. Exactly. To avoid any confusion, now would be a good time reinforce that these prewar systems we have been discussing in this thread are two separate ignition systems each firing half the engine. These prewar systems have nothing in common with "dual points" systems as commonly used in the 1950s and 1960s. These later systems were only a single ignition system, with one ignition coil, and the points slightly offset so that one set handles opening and the other set handles closing. It allows more dwell without exceeding the physical and electrical limits of points, but probably wont be found on engines with more than 8 cylinders.

The sequence is the only difference. In function it does not matter, but now take the regulator away and let the blue wire from the field coil hang open. In the first diagram you would have to connect the blue wire to ground to make the generator charge. In the second diagram you would have to connect the blue wire to battery voltage to make the generator charge.

If you haven't needed it so far, you probably don't need it. There is some advantage to running pressure, although I don't think pressurizing the tank would be the best way to go about it. If you put the pressure cap on the tank, you would be setting yourself up to get burned by opening the radiator cap. If you do it, keep it down to 4 pounds. A radiator meant for no pressure can't take much. These old cars were designed (most of them anyway) to run without an overflow tank. The airspace for expansion is just a big top tank that is never full. Accessory tanks existed in the 30s and 40s for Chevrolet and Pontiac. They were unpressurized. It still works. If your plumbing is good it will siphon (and if your plumbing leaks, you still have a catch tank). The Chevrolet version was mounted up high on the firewall and depended on siphoning less than the Pontiac, which mounted on the frame rail.

Terry, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I've been using modern antifreeze formulas in copper/brass radiators since the mid 80s and have yet to see any downside. I do agree that probably "any old antifreeze" is probably not optimal, and the one you suggested is probably a good one. It really is necessary to read the datasheets these days, and Zerex has very good datasheeets. The G-05 I mentioned did very well in corrosion protection tests (see the datasheet), and does not have a tendency to foam up in an unpressurized system, as many of the old formulas did. Speaking of old formulas, many people who think they are using them are not. Several brands use downright deceptive labeling, and have been doing so for over a decade now. Green dye convinces people it is the same as it used to be. It often isn't. In the end, it probably doesn't matter. As for ZDDP, it wasn't even used in the days of poured babbitt, unless you count the very last poured babbitt Hudsons and Chevrolets. It was added when overhead valve V8s became common to help deal with cam and follower trouble caused by higher valve spring pressures. The very high concentrations of ZDDP everyone seems to insist on today came about in the early 70s to protect cam followers that were failing in Ford overhead cam engines (Pintos, etc.). This type of cam follower runs under the camshaft and resembles a lever. It cannot spin to reduce friction like a traditional cam follower can. Apparently it needs a lot of ZDDP. There is really no disagreement here though. I also prefer the higher ZDDP oil formulas, although there has been plenty of deceptive marketing (and outright lying) about ZDDP content levels, too. ZDDP can't hurt unless you overdo it, but it wasn't a thing in the prewar era. All the best, --bloo