pmhowe

I think you are on the right path: Getting a replacement will be your very best option. However, I would pursue a parallel path of looking into the state of the art of welding cast iron. I believe that the state of the art is such that your part could be successfully welded if you find the right expertise. At any rate, good luck, and condolences. That should never have happened. Phil

I received a Detroit Lubricator carburetor Model 51 for a 1934/1935 V8 Cadillac for my main Christmas gift. These are fairly rare, so I am thrilled to have it. It has been cleaned up nicely by the former owner, but it obviously needs work as the kicker screw and the throttle stop settings are wrong and the throttle linkage does not work smoothly. At the moment, I am reviewing the (sparse) literature on them. I have already gotten some good tips from reading various threads in the AACA forums. Phil

I agree. It is normal, but low. I would check all the inlet and carburetor nuts for tightness. That has fixed the problem for me in the past. Phil

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

I agree with Joe and Bloo. I have used the Pertronics ignition kits on a few cars in the past, and found a high failure rate, so I switched back to the standard points and condenser systems. To be fair, my experience with them is at least ten years out of date, so reliability may have improved. On the other hand, reliability of condensers has not improved: I have had several recently purchased made-in-China condensers fail in short order. Should you decide to stick with the points and condenser approach, I highly recommend the approach shown below: Posted by Fred Winterburn on MogGroup ( a site for Morgan owners). “If you want to make a bulletproof condenser, I suggested a modern retrofit to an MG owner and it is being used by more than one MG owner and a guy with a Porsche. It is a 1000V rated ceramic capacitor rated at 125 degrees C and if potted inside an original condenser shell works even better than the paper/foil crappy ones when they are new. It tested significantly better on my test rig than an equivalent condenser with the same μF capacity. It's quite small and fit easily inside the Lucas shell. I potted it in place with JB weld (it has to be potted in epoxy to be reliable). One lead is soldered to the inside of the can and the other to a piece of teflon insulated wire. See the pic of the standard condenser and the retrofit condenser on my Morgan. This is not hard to do if you can solder and worth doing in my opinion. The capacitor that I used can be bought at many electronics parts stores. Just google it: Kemet brand, 1000V, 0.22μF, part # C350C224KDR5TA If you go this route it would be the last condenser it ever needed. I put mine through a considerable amount of abuse during testing with no degradation. Fred”

That is actually a Mark V. Here is an internet picture of a Mark IV. It was made up through 1948 and was essentially the same as the pre-war models. It came with 1 1/2, 2 1/2 or 3 1/2 Liter overhead valve engine. The Mark V, which was introduced in September of 1948, used the same engines. Both models were beautiful cars.

According to the factory manuals, the 1934 and 1935 V8 engines had 353 cu. in. displacements. From what I have read, there is not a whole lot of commonality between engines of these two years and others.

I agree with Sagefinds: The engine is a 1934 model. The 1935 engine numbers began with 3105001. I think the manifolds are 180 out of phase in the picture: The semiautomatic choke should be facing towards the engine fan. To me the degree of complexity in manifold design that Cadillac went through to maintain a downdraft carburetor is fascinating and awe-inspiring. It's like having an octopus sitting on top of the engine. I think there is only one mixture adjustment on the carburetor, but there is the usual complexity in the linkage. I suspect it would be a real challenge to tune this engine. Makes me wonder why, when many (most?) other cars, even some GM cars, had gone to downdraft carburetor designs. PhiI

There is nothing like a good gloat! Enjoy!🤣

There is an excellent book about Alvis: "Alvis, The Story of the Red Triangle", by Kenneth Day. Published 1981 byGentry Books, London. It covers company history, racing history, car specs and performance, aero engines, and armored vehicles. It has lots of black and white pictures. A great book for any car enthusiast. Phil

"Aeroplane"?

Here is another: We still say "dashboard", and that term pre-dates the automobile. World Wide Words states "The sense of dash is the one that refers to the “violent throwing and breaking of water or other liquids upon or against anything”, as the Oxford English Dictionary puts it. The dashboard was a wooden board, or a leather apron like the one that the article mentions. It was placed at the front of a carriage, sleigh or other vehicle to catch the mud or water thrown up by the horses’ hooves and stop it from soaking the driver and his passengers. We would now call it a kind of mudguard." World Wide Words notes that the term dates from the second decade of the 19th century. Now my iMac has a dashboard. It's fun to speculate how appropriate that usage is.

I love looking at them - mine and others. Part of it is admiring the engineering. Part is looking at the artistry of the design. Part is thinking about its history, and stories that are part of it, and thinking about how that design fitted into the times it faced. I love working on mine, although at times the love slowly migrates into frustration. I love driving them - and there are two parts to that: I enjoy listening to the engine and other sounds and trying to sort out what needs to be fixed or addressed. But I get more satisfaction when it is running just fine, and I love it when I escape that level to the next, where the car and the driving experience are joined together. I love it when other adults admire the care and share their stories, and ask questions, or sometimes assure me they know more about my car than I do. .I love it when youngsters are attracted and want to know about it. Guess what? I don't like it when the darn thing breaks down, usually because there was something I should have done and didn't. Luckily, that is happening less and less often now. (If I repeat the mistake often enough, I learn from them.) Phil

I'm glad to see that this worked out. By the way, a handsome car. I'll bet it is a joy to drive. Phil

Back in the 'eighties, a good friend of mine had a 240Z. I had a 1963 Morgan Super sport. His Z would suck the doors off my Morgan. Of course, when I found the proper road, it was (sometimes - I'd like to say often) a different story. The Z of that period was a very nice car.

Congratulations on the success! Your brakes sound impressive. Actually, your persistence is equally impressive. I'm glad it paid off. Phil

Your comment gave me my laugh for the day. Back in the 1970s, I was into Jaguars. i found that, with - i think three different keys - I could start any fifties or sixties Jaguar I tried. The locks and keys were made by Union. I still have a bunch of the keys, i just don't have the Jaguars. Jaguar and Union need not be too embarrassed; many if not most tractor brands have a single key that will start any of their tractors.

NZcarnerd, it's a really old car. Thanks for the correction.

!935 Cadillac. Note the lock for the radio. Early radios for 6V systems were terrible energy hogs and could quickly drain a car battery.

I guess I am very lucky. We get extraordinarily good service from all three: UPS, USPS, and FedEx. Of course we know the drivers. Being in a rural area probably makes the difference.

I'd like to reemphasize Tom Boehm's comment: My experience is that if you have a battery tender on a 6V battery, you must monitor the water level. P

It would seem to me that this might be an ideal candidate for 3D printing. Here is a thread to get started: https://forums.cadillaclasalleclub.org/index.php?topic=159641.msg503719#msg503719 .

Hi Alex, I would recommend you do not change the thickness of the brake lining - yet. I think the problem lies elsewhere. In the shop manual for my 1935 Cadillac, the brake thickness specifications are indeed different for the floating and fixed shoes. Here is what the manual says: “The floating or upper brake shoes are energized with the forward motion of the car and do most of the braking. For this reason, they are made of aluminum alloy and are provided with a thicker lining (1/4-in.) than the lower shoes. The anchored or lower shoes are energized with the backward movement of the car. As these shoes do less braking they are made of steel and are provided with thinner linings of 3/16 in. thickness.” The 1932 manual does not make that claim and I infer from reading it that the two shoes should have the same thickness (3/16”) on yours. It may be that our brakes are perfectly fine, and we are just not used to what Cadillac thought was appropriate for vacuum assisted brakes at that time. It would help if we had input from some other Cadillac owners regarding what their car’s brakes feel like in standard operation. Regarding the rear brakes locking up and the front brakes doing nothing, I think that is an adjustment problem. When I first got my car, I found that the rear brakes were dragging to the point that I couldn’t turn the rear wheels with car rear end raised and transmission in neutral. After adjusting the rear brakes, the wheels turn freely and the car stops fine, with no squirrelly-ness. It’s just that the brake pedal doesn’t feel firm the way I would expect. I’ll be exploring further, and hope you will, also. Phil

I’m curious about the brakes on my 1935 Cadillac. When I got the car the brakes had been relined with new shoes. The brakes apparently had been adjusted by an expert. (I say that because the braking system on a 1934 -1935 Cadillac is awesomely complex, and this car stopped when it should, and didn’t squirrel even slightly.) However, these brakes are a bit spongier than I like. For those of you who drive extremely modern antique cars (1960s, say) these brakes feel like hydraulic brakes using silicone fluid - just not as stiff as one might like. It may be the servo assist which does make braking impressively easy, or it may be the way the linkage is set up, or it may be something else. Is there a way to make them less spongy? I’m happy with stopping distance, so that is not the issue. Thanks, Phil

I agree with Zepher: It is a very good looking car with very nice proportions. It looks like the body is in sound shape. The door gaps all seem quite uniform, indicating the wood frame underneath is probably in good shape. I had a slightly earlier Hudson years ago, and loved it. I always felt that the 8 cylinder Nashes compared very favorably with the Hudsons. Good, solid cars. If you sort it out mechanically, I'll bet it will give you years of pleasure.