Bloo

Under the hood, probably. Under the dash probably not but maybe if they fit good and are in good shape. They worked all these years. If you do re-use them, remove them carefully, and be sure the new hose is the same or slightly thicker than the old one without being way thicker. In my experience, black hose usually lasts longer than red even though red is marketed as premium. What's best is a fuel injection clamp (solid band with pull screw) or something similar that stays round as it tightens (worm clamps really don't). It's difficult to source big ones though. It will probably boil down to either the originals or what you can buy that fits. One thing about the originals is that they do stay round. You can only tighten the clamp so much on thin brass. Oh one other thing, make sure the hose is just a wee bit undersize so it has to stretch a little to go over the nipples. It doesn't need much. If it's loose I'd get a different piece of hose.

Well, from that view I don't see anything wrong. If all sides look like that it is probably OK. I would look really closely at that valve though. No powder? No black trail of discolor going in the direction that would be straight down if mounted in the car? I wouldn't trust that hose 10 feet. I don't like that design at all. I have two cars that I have preemptively removed the dashboards from just to replace underdash hoses like that before they broke. It's under the same pressure as the rest of the cooling system, and if it splits suddenly it could dump an unbelievable amount of almost boiling coolant in the footwell in a very short amount of time. I've not had that happen, but have seen cars roll into the shop like that. Slower leaks I have had years ago, where a hole opens in the side of the hose, typically making a mess and permanently injuring the carpet.

Look for white powdery stuff that resembles calcium deposits wherever the core was leaking, probably along the edge where a tank or header attaches. The rot should show in this way, never mind the actual leak. The powdery spot is where the leak is. Similarly, the valve should show corrosion and probably a trail straight down if it is the culprit. Is this a Ranco valve? If so, it's usually easy to see the trail where the water came out of those. If you have nice shiny new looking parts and there's no white powder and no trail, it probably was as you suspected coming from leaky hose connections outside and running in.

That's true. Cup expanders can mitigate that to some extent if the leaks are at the cups. Any modern rebuilds or kits should have them, although someone posted a GM kit the other day that did not. Other leaks just shouldn't be happening. Wow. These weren't troublesome systems when new.. well except for the initial setup... and except for the hydraulic stop light switch, if that is what it has. Those switches are lousy. On a modified car, I would get rid of it but not a survivor. New aftermarket production ones with a extra letter at the end of the part number activate at lower pressure, a big improvement. Most of them are (supposedly) incompatible with Silicone fluid, but a genuine Harley Davidson one (yes, really) might solve that if you plan to run silicone fluid. Years ago when I did a lot of Chrysler stuff, I never replaced as many parts as you have even dragging cars out that had been "resting" outdoors for years. Brakes every 18 months is crazy, even in daily heavy use. Something is wrong there, and it is hard to guess what. I recommend starting with freshly turned drums and arc ground shoes to match. Rubber hoses need to be new or recent. Steel lines? Well, in my area they are basically a non-problem, but if the car is from an area where they salt the roads replacing them wouldn't be a bad idea. Any bad bores in the cylinders need to be sleeved. As much trouble as you have had, I would be tempted to sleeve all of them even though I never would have back in the day. Set everything up EXACLTY as the manual says. Yes it's fiddly. Yes, it's a pain. You might need to do it twice. When you get it right, you should not need to screw with it all the time, minor adjustments ONLY to compensate for wear. When these brakes are right, they feel really really good. They feel linear like discs, because they have no servo action. They also require more pedal pressure, just like discs do because they also have no servo action. Unless you have power assist, that is. Then all bets are off about pedal effort. The main advantage to discs over these is fade resistance. If you do a lot of driving in mountain passes you would probably notice a difference. With drum brake cars it was good practice to "save" your brakes when going downhill at highway speeds for miles and miles. Get them too hot and they could fade out. It was a possibility. Discs can fade out too, and will under enough stress, but they shed heat much better, and fade is less likely... well.... assuming the discs brakes are big enough. Keep in mind that most brake pulling problems are really suspension problems and won't go away when you fix the brakes. We are mainly restorers in this forum, so you probably won't find a lot of info about that here. The best disc conversions on Chrysler products have always involved backdating something from a newer Chrysler product. Richard "Rick" Ehrenberg documented a bunch of these in Mopar Action magazine back in the day. The suspension geometry on these cars was well done and in some cases stayed the same for a very long time. There may be a spindle that is for the correct geometry. I know this is doable back to 1965 on the full size cars. 1960 is a real reach, but I wouldn't rule it out without finding out for sure if it is possible to backdate like that without screwing up the geometry. A few years ago Rick (or maybe the magazine) had a site up and some old articles up. Maybe he would answer an email? I've seen some kits over the years on big cars that were made of little 4-piston racing parts that were way too small. Caveat emptor. Probably different wheels will be needed to clear the calipers, at least if the brakes are big enough for the car. Radials drive better. Bias has "the look". The look is pretty important on a survivor IMHO. Modern radials will make it sit lower. Gearing is an issue on so many cars, but won't be on this one. The speedometer will be off. Bias look radials are available in the correct original sizes though, and look pretty good. Check out Diamondback Auburn and Coker Classic radials. They hit at full lock. It's annoying but not impossible to live with. The original tires would have had an aspect ratio of 90% or 100% and 75% is as tall as it usually gets in modern radials. Bias look radials are the better plan here as they are the right size. They might still touch(?) but would be way better. They also cost a lot more. That conversion is highly overrated. I wouldn't. Unless you go to disc brakes. In that case you need the huge reservoir on the disc side of the master cylinder. It's a safety issue because the fluid level will drop with pad wear, and if the reservoir is not big enough you can run out of fluid. In practice, with parts you can actually buy, a dual master cylinder is the only way you are going to get the big reservoir for the discs. You don't want the original type on the bypass hose, unless your main goal is points at shows. It will blow off of the hose barb at 70mph while you are passing someone. The originals work OK on all the other hoses, but I am still not a fan of them because they seem to damage the hose. You'll probably have to have them made at a spring shop. Chrysler, later on in the 60s when building police cars, towing packages, station wagons, etc. went from 6 leaves to 7 leaves. I doubt those later springs would fit directly anyway (they might), but the spring shop will have data on those later springs. That data would give you a good clue how much to increase the spring rate for a "heavy duty" application. For instance, look at the difference between 1965-68 Fury I-II-III and 1965-68 Fury Police/Towing. Increase rate by about the same percentage. Welcome to the forum.

One more thing, your new thermostat should have a tiny bleed hole in it. A rattle valve will also work. If it has neither, you might have an air lock not allowing the thermostat to open.

Since it happened right after a boilover, I suspect you have a blown head gasket. There are kits to check for abnormal C02 in the radiator, indicating that combustion gases are leaking into the cooling system. If you are in the US you can get one of these on the "loaner" program at Oreilly or AutoZone. You "buy" the tool for some nominal amount, and when you bring it back in a couple of days they give you your money back. These use a blue fluid for CO2 detection and the bottle of blue fluid is the only part you must buy outright. This test is not perfect, but it is real good. If it passes (fluid stays blue), combustion leakage is almost certainly not the problem, although the tool can miss once in a great while. If it fails (fluid turns yellow) that is 100% a failure and there are combustion gases in the radiator. Most of the time, probably 95% of the time, that means a blown head gasket. There are some other ways combustion gases can get in the radiator, like cracked blocks, porous heads, etc., but those are far less common than head gasket failure. You should know the most common cause of overheating in a Pontiac Six is the water distribution tube. The same one fits from 1937-1954 sixes, with 1935-36 being similar but not exact. The originals were galvanized steel and rust out. When the tube has some leaks, water can circulate without ever getting to the back of the engine. Persistent boilover is the result. When the tube fails completely, the car becomes undriveable due to fast boiling. If you need one, California Pontiac Restoration has galvanized ones like the originals. Brass tubes exist and are desirable because they won't fail, but aren't made anymore. They do turn up on ebay occasionally. On many models of Pontiac it is possible to remove the radiator, water pump, and part of the grille to get the old water tube out through the front. That was not possible on my 36 though. Read about my misadventures here, and there's pictures of a 1937-1954 aftermarket brass water tube, too:

This. Get the manual(s). There's bands to adjust and linkages to adjust. It all matters. There might very well be nothing wrong with the transmission. The engine originally used rather ordinary oil (probably 10W30 or 20W20 or so in 54. Maybe SAE20). They didn't use heavy oil originally, but it might not be a bad idea in hot weather especially if it has trouble holding pressure when hot.

Sealed beams landed in late 1939 for the 1940 model year.

It's called hood lace. There are a bunch of sizes/widths/thicknesses. Some use an internal wire for attachment, some don't. Only a few types are reproduced. You may have to pick something close. Some possibilities for a supply: https://www.restorationspecialties.com/Channel-Hood-Lace_c_234.html https://restorationstuff.com/product/hood-lace-and-fender-welt-29/ https://www.steelerubber.com/fabric-hood-lacing-70-2221-42 https://bobsautomobilia.com/shop/firewall-cowl-items/hood-lace-78x-316-channel-style-sold-by-the-ft-cl-78/ rubber https://metrommp.com/all_rubber_hood_lace_with_double_sealing_bulbs_58_wide_lp_14p/ Nails (some cars) https://www.robertsmotorparts.com/hood-lace-nails-each-used-with-fabric-style-hood-lace-see-t11-1

Try California Pontiac Restoration 714 245 9800. If they don't have one they might know who to call next. Is it broken or just missing small parts?

No war here. As I mentioned earlier, I'm doing it too. If you are getting away with it more power to you. It does feel smoother. You made a small change. I'll bet at .040 you could have trouble with Buick's wiring setup. Maybe not. Modern cars don't enter into it. No manufacturer would do today what Buick did, It worked fine the way they sold it, so I'm not really casting any shade on them. In my opinion (you know how that works, everybody has one) Buick should have got rid of the shields and parallel wire routing decades before they did. Yes it's traditional and yes it looks good, but by the 40s and probably quite a bit earlier the engineers at Buick HAD to know better. I doubt 12 volts had anything to do with it either. There is a limit to how much current you can switch with points, and that is what limits the "ceiling", at least if you want the points to last at all. In theory, doubling the voltage should have doubled the power available (Watts = Volts x Amps), but in practice almost nobody did that. They used a ballast resistor and ran the system on about 7.5 volts, about the same coil voltage as a 6 volt car that is running and charging. If you can run wider gaps on 12 volts you can do it on 6 volts too, because there is no difference in the supply voltage and very little difference in the coil. That point would not have been lost on Buick's engineers. The first real limit is the insulation, or rather how high can you take the spark voltage before things start coupling and firing 2 plugs at once, arcing over to ground, crossfiring in the distributor cap, burning a hole in the rotor to the grounded center shaft, and so on. The second limit (at about .035-.040" gap) is how much current the points can handle. When you design a coil to charge with more energy during the dwell period so the "ceiling" can be higher, it draws more current. I recall Smokey Yunick described in his book "Power Secrets" the lengths he and his team went to in order to continue using points ignitions (rather than magnetos) in high-RPM V8s in professional racing back in the late 60s and 70s. In the end, with 8 cylinders and 7000+ RPM, it just doesn't work. The dwell times are too short to charge the coil. It gets exponentially worse as RPM increases, and trying to up the current enough to compensate for that makes slag out of the points. You just need an electronic switch to even attempt it. Fortunately, few if any of our antiques or street cars spin fast enough or have enough cylinders that points can't do the job fine on either 6 or 12 volts. A third limit is at about .060, when it becomes nearly impossible to hold the spark in even when you really work at it. GM tried .080 on some Oldsmobiles(?) in the 80s. They were using 8mm silicone wires, an electronic (HEI) ignition module with current limiting, a coil fed with 12 volts via heavy wire and a distributor cap the size of a lard tub. It just couldn't keep the energy contained, and I believe they eventually recanted. Mechanics learned right away to set those at .060 or less.

It has nothing to do with 6v vs 12v really. The "higher voltage" thing is just marketing hype for aftermarket ignitions. What a higher voltage coil gives you, assuming low enough RPM and enough dwell (time) to charge it properly, is a higher "ceiling", so to speak. In other words, if the coil wire is disconnected, how high will the voltage rise before it stops rising and peters out. All else being equal, If you put a 50,000 volt coil on a car, almost nothing will change. If the coil draws more current it will burn up the points faster. In practice, it is the spark plug gap that raises the voltage, nothing else. Well, nothing except bad ignition parts that are effectively also raising the gap the spark must jump. A old car probably runs around 8000-15000 volts, depending on the gap and to a lesser extent compression ratio, load, rpm, etc. The voltage can be measured on a scope. It is approximate. If the voltage rises to the "ceiling" the plug will not fire. This will happen under heavy load (lugging) or high rpm or both. A higher "ceiling", as given by a fancy coil, does nothing unless you were hitting the "ceiling" and the engine missed under load. Not really. Maybe a little bit. Exhaust analyzers don't lie about that. At the risk of opening a can of worms, that's a timing issue (burn time). The difference between .035 and .045 gaps in systems of the 1970s-1980s era can be noticed running in the shop. I would imagine that too, at least under heavy load, and did imagine it until I found out a bunch of guys on the VCCA forums were running .040 on stock early 30s stovebolt sixes with stock coils. There are a bunch of caveats in those VCCA threads I won't go into here because it may not apply. I'm running .040 on the Pontiac and have been for a couple years now. I am not suggesting you do that on a Buick. Running the system at a higher than stock firing voltage means the insulation in the ignition parts will have to hold that voltage back. The parts were not designed for it and the insulation may not last. That goes for the coil too. The terminals inside the cap and rotor may be too close together to prevent crossfiring, especially on humid days. The short spark plugs I use might not have enough porcelain to use with bare terminals at the higher voltage. So far, none of that has bit me, even in heavy rain, but it might. Buick is a special case. While their good looking enclosed wiring was not unusual in the mid 30s when voltages were really low, it breaks ALL the rules of how you should route ignition wires. Running them parallel risks electrical coupling. Running them close together risks tests the limits of the insulation. Running the wires inside grounded metal REALLY tests the insulation. Bare ignition terminals running that close to the cover are like hanging a "Kick Me" sign on your back. Electricity always takes the easiest path. Taller spark plugs move the terminal even closer to the metal, and depending on heat range you may not be able to get any plugs as short as the AC plugs of the 30s. It just barely worked then. I've seen those covers spaced away from the engine to stop the arcing. In the 50s with high compression engines and wider gaps Buick was BEGGING for trouble, and trouble there was and is. There are scads of old threads on this forum about ignition problems related to these issues. So @Rock10, you and I are both asking for trouble from unwanted ignition coupling between cylinders and from insulation failure. Since my wires are held far away from anything grounded on an insulator, I have only the coil, cap, and rotor (especially the rotor) to worry about. You have literally all of it.

That sounds like it probably works. There's a flapper in there that changes the direction of the exhaust. When cold, it brings hot exhaust up around the bores under your carburetor. When the manifold gets hot, the bimetal spring relaxes and the weight falls down and holds the flapper in a different position. Then the exhaust goes straight out.

Maybe, but possibly not. In 1964 the factories in South Bend, IN and Hamilton, ON were both still open. In 1965 and 1966 Studebakers were made only in Hamilton. With South bend closed the supply of Studebaker engines dried up. The 1965 and 1966 models had GM "McKinnon" engines which were essentially Chevrolet industrial variants made in Canada.

A 4 wire switch cannot share bulbs with the brake lights, and needs separate turn signal housings installed at the rear. Maybe the front too if the parking lights cannot be easily converted to bright bulbs. There is also no difference between front and rear on a 4 wire system. The four wires on a four wire switch typically are: Power in (from flasher) Right Bulbs (all) Left Bulbs (all) Turn Indicator (connects to 3rd pin of flasher). Have you looked inside? Maybe some wires have been cut off? What is that knob under the control stalk? If that is for 4-way flashers, the switch is fairly new, probably 1960s or later. It kind of surprises me to see it as a 4 wire switch if that is the case. On the other hand, there were various conversion kits for older trucks that came with 4 turn signal housings to mount on the truck, and had no real need for a 7 wire switch. Maybe it's from one of those.

THIS!^^ An electrical circuit is a circle. On a starter circuit follow it all way around, from the battery, through the starter cable and back all the way through the ground side to the other battery post. Every connection needs to be clean. Imagine the electrons wanting to flow through there. If the electrical current is flowing through paint or rust, get rid of the paint or rust. I am not familiar with the specific Auburn issue @Curti mentioned, but the reasoning and solution are about the same. On a typical Postwar Ford starter for instance, the ground-side starter brushes are also grounded to the rear plate. Where that rear plate contacts the starter frame, it must be clean, no paint!. Where the starter frame contacts the nose casting, also clean. Where the nose casting contacts the bellhousing or engine block, clean, and so on. all the way back to the ground-side battery cable and then to the other battery post. This is true no matter how many volts the battery has. Cables must be large on a 6 volt car. 00 is commonly recommended. Wire gauge from small to large counts down. Smaller >> 6 > 4 > 2 > 1 > 0 > 00 > 000 > 0000 >> larger. Some originals were as small as 1. 12 volt cables are typically 4 and too small to work properly at 6 volts. 6 volt systems are extremely sensitive to wire size, and bigger is almost always better. 6 volt cables good enough for a show restoration are available at Rhode Island Wire. If authentic looking cable is not needed, look at any parts store that caters to farm equipment. There are a lot of 6 volt tractors still in service, and they will have the large cables (and the big straps that were often used for ground) in stock. Another possibility is to have some made. Battery stores can do this. I don't mean the ones in a mall that have every watch battery imaginable, but the sort of store that has batteries for cars, trucks, tractors, combines, buses, heavy equipment, golf carts, etc. Typically you can get cables made from either truck/bus cable (it's really stiff in 00 but indestructible), or welding cable (much easier to route, and probably the best choice, but you shouldn't be getting a bunch of oil on it).

This is a very common problem with Flathead Pontiacs, and a lot of trouble could be saved if more people knew about it. I don't believe it applies to @MercMontMars car though because it has a 2-barrel carb. 1-barrel cars have a replaceable tube in there. On a recent Flathead Pontiac Zoom call, the subject came up once again and the consensus was that 2 barrel manifolds are not built that way. MercMontMars: Look down the two throttle bores in the manifold with a bright light. What you are looking for is pinholes through the bores going toward the outside. The bores are surrounded by exhaust. I don't think you'll find any holes because I think it is all cast iron on a 2 barrel manifold, but it can't hurt to have a close look while the carburetor is off. Those bores were replaceable steel tubing on the 1 barrel cars. Amen. Those are conversion kits are horrible. I suspect I know what @carbking is going to say here, but I'll wait and see. In my opinion what you need is the original part. The black plastic piece is what needs replacing. The right one will have a thermostatic spring inside. With the black thing removed, there is a little piston inside the housing. It must be free to move with the linkage. Start soaking it in penetrating oil if it is stuck. There might or might not be a fine brass screen where the hot air comes in from the little tube. EDIT: I see @carbking responded while I was typing. A burned through choke stove, while a common problem on many cars, won't be a problem on this one. It is very hard to see how the flathead Pontiac choke stove is built while the exhaust manifold is still on the car, so I think you'll have to take my word for it. The exhaust manifold, despite it's looks, is a rams horn design, and the spot that little tube goes to has nothing but hot air. What you DON'T want is the choke sucking exhaust through the little tube. The little tube is for hot air only. The little tube looks like it goes to exhaust on this car but it does not. Be careful with that little tube. It's super easy to break. It can be replaced, but that's just more work....

I'd try some Westley's Bleche-Wite.

Another key piece of information is which end of the range is empty, (0 or 30 in the case of that Studebaker).

This car would be bucketloads of fun. I'm not too fond of the mold on the paint, but beyond than that I wouldn't change anything. The 290 can't really be original, it's probably from the late 60s. I believe this would have had a 304 if it was built with a v8 initially, and there were very few of those around. Most of the ones that were around were later versions with highly questionable late 1970s styling updates. "X" is just an appearance package, and not as good looking as what you see here in my opinion. Also as previously mentioned, this car looks older than 1977. Most were sixes. This probably was too. They were not underpowered with the six, at least not in the early 70s. A former employer of mine bought his daughter one with a six and she could light up the tires for more than a city block. As a 290 4 speed with the earlier styling, this is an enthusiast car with well chosen parts, and probably better left alone than restored.

What make?

I agree. That doesn't sound like driveline trouble. That doesn't sound like a particularly great idea. I assume the rag joints would have run dead straight at normal ride height to avoid tearing themselves up. Conventional u-joints on the other hand need a little angle to keep the bearings rolling back and forth. The rub is, when there is any angle, the driven end of the u-joint speeds up and slows down as it turns causing vibration. You mitigate this by using 2 of them. If the angles on the 2 joints are identical the speed variations will cancel. The angles can be equal and opposite, or equal and additive. Either works. The rotation coming off of the second u joint will be smooth, and so no additional vibration. This is a completely separate issue from balance, which can also cause vibration. Conventional u joints will run smooth if you run them dead straight too, just not for very long. The little bearings do not roll, and they pound or wear dents in the cross where they contact it. The damage looks very similar to what happens when a u-joint runs out of lubricant. Here is a picture Gerty the Gremlin posted in a Pontiac thread. This probably wasn't caused by wrong angle, but it is a nice clear picture that shows exactly the kind of damage I am talking about. If you have the driveshaft out of the car, I would be really tempted to take those u-joints apart and inspect them. If you do, make marks so that it goes back together with the flanges "clocked" the same way in relation to the driveshaft tube, and on the same end they came from. Getting a flange 180 degrees out will upset the original balance job on the driveshaft. Still, I think you are dealing with engine or flywheel/clutch vibration due to your description.

Thank you!

Probably yes! The model year starts early in the previous year. August is a bit early but possible. If so, it would have been brand spanking new, and one of the first ones on the street.

That's a 39 Buick.