Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gasket

  1. Hi All, Got casting # for upper body--GI-126--(located under brass screen above the glass bowl--thanks, Sasha and Tom); and for lower body--GI-110. Also a '4' appears on the lower body near the left side of the mounting flange. I'm guessing that lever-type arm would be the right kind. So I know exactly what to look for. Seems likely that e-bay will turn it up sooner or later. That said, and reflecting on Jack M's post, above, I took a second look at the 1930 camshaft, pasted above, and see what does look like a soft cam/eccentric--designed for a fuel pump--just after the valve cams f
  2. Hi Jack M, As stated in several of the above postings, Chrysler introduced mechanical fuel pumps the very next year, 1930. Quoting the Chrysler series 77 Instruction Book (July 1929), "Fuel system [is] driven from [the] camshaft...(p.80)." These 1930 fuel pumps were located on the same side (right side) of the block as what was improvised on my 1929 series 65, but more forward--roughly adjacent to #1/#2 pistons. I don't know whether 1930 fuel pumps--and beyond--had their own designated cam (as opposed to letting a valve cam do double-duty), but not having looked inside any 1930 eng
  3. Hi All, In case there is any lingering interest, posted here is a belated reply to F&J's and Artificer Tom's suggestion about dropping the pan and looking at the cam... I finally got around to that; the third image, attached, shows that a mechanical fuel pump could ride on the cam of #5 cylinder. The cam lobe is visible at the top of the image; below that, light shines through the opening that was cut into the right side of the block for the pump (the right side of the image faces rearward). Right now it's running on new electric fuel pump, but it would be fun to someday see
  4. Hi Narve, You're not wrong. From browsing the internet, it appears that the term, 'honeycomb', is used somewhat generically. For example, one manufacturer, Brassworks, thebrassworks.net, in their descriptions of hex-honeycomb, v-cell, and diamond say that "They are commonly referred to as "honeycomb cores" but the patterns are varied." Thanks again, Jack
  5. Hi 1930 Kram66 and Narve N, Thanks for the great pictures--just what I needed; though, shouldn't honeycomb have 6-sides? (Looks like diamond shape to me(?)) Thanks again. Yours, Jack
  6. Hi All, What is the correct core material for 1929 Chrysler series 65? I'm guessing not honeycomb. Auburn / diamond? (Are they the same thing?) What I have now--that needs recored--is a crude job done in v-cell, which I doubt is original. Thanks for any guidance. Yours, Jack 'Gasket'
  7. Hi All, Please forgive this tardy reply.... The consensus appears to support F&J's and Hwellens' view that this is a modification (less flatteringly, a 'backyard' improvisation). The lack of machined boss to support a fuel pump supports that. Also, courtesy of Hwellens, mechanical fuel pumps on series 66 Chryslers--successors to the series 65--were located forward on the block; not backwards on the block (as on mine), which weakens the view that mine is a late production upgrade. Also, Narve N has later production blocks with engine numbers higher than mine which do not have me
  8. Hi All, As mentioned, here are more photos showing fedco no., right side engine, detail about mechanical fuel pump placement, detail about the pump itself, and also left side engine. My Series 65 does appear to be of fairly late manufacture. Standard Catalog of Chrysler (John Lee, 1990) states engine numbers for Series 65 run from P175001 to P241336. Mine is P227193. Fedco no., DP403D, also indicates fairly late manufacture, April 1929, which gives plausibility to Vintage Ben's idea about on-line upgrades during production--something that Chrysler (always ahead on engineering) was kno
  9. Hi All, Thanks to everyone for your helpful feedback. So, the plot thickens... I will post photos of the engine tomorrow--to help determine if it is a true '29 engine or a '36 Plymouth. Attached is a photo of the engine number (and one of the car itself). Thanks Hwellens for the photo from your archive. I just acquired the car last week, and drove it a bit, but encountered what appear to be fuel feed problems--even with electric pump. My thought was to return to mechanical fuel feed. More later. Yours truly
  10. My 1929 Chrysler Model 65, engine no. P227193, fedco no. DP403D, has a mechanical fuel pump. Is that correct? All the AACA Forum threads seem to show only vacuum type fuel pumps. Also, assuming mechanical fuel pump is correct, can anyone point me to a replacement pump or rebuild kit? The pump I have has no manufacturer name--only 'B.C' embossed on top. So in a parts search, I don't know how to describe it, nor do I know anything about possible interchange. Also, do rebuild kits--if available--include the activator arm that rolls off the cam--to power the pump? It
  11. Does anyone know when Chrysler products--Chyrslers, Plymouths, Dodges, and DeSotos--switched from externally contracting bands to internally expanding shoes on their drum brakes? Langworth & Norbye (1985) The Complete History of Chrysler... say Chryslers went to shoes in 1929, but do not mention whether that was true across the board for other Chrysler products. Thanks
  • Create New...