WPVT

My 1954 flat head 6 Dodge truck engine had some problems with engine noise at 40 MPH and over, so I retarded the spark, and now it runs much better, smoother, and quieter. I tried retarding it more and retarding it less, and found what seemed to be the sweet spot. The change was dramatic. Now it's quite smooth at 50 mph. I was curious,though, so I checked the timing with a light , and it was retarded a full 10 degrees at idle (400 rpm). So I put it back to 0 degrees at idle, as specified in the manual. Doing that gives me about 10 degrees advance at 1500 rpm. At 2000 rpm I can no longer see any marks, so it's well advanced at that speed. Vacuum advance is new, and centrifugal advance seems like it's working properly. I haven't road tested it yet, but I suspect I will be back where I was, with a noisy engine at 40 mph. The cure seems to be retarding the timing by 10 degrees, but I'm puzzled. Why, do you suppose, would my engine run so much better with the spark retarded that much ? Compression is good, and it runs smoothly. No soot on the plugs....steady vacuum at 18 or so. The crankshaft pulley is reading correctly, as I mechanically verified TDC. Carburetor was rebuilt, new ignition wires, points, etc.

We recently had a somewhat similar problem. Had to get a very low slung car with the wheels locked (electronic parking brake and lost electronic key) onto a non-tilting trailer and hauled to the dealer. We put the car tires on machine dollies to move it to the trailer. Totally deflated the trailer's rearmost axle tires, which made the trailer's forward tires the new fulcrum. Jacked up the trailer tongue until the rear end of the the trailer bed touched the ground. In essence, we made it into a tilt bed trailer. Then using dish soap as a lubricant, we winched the car onto the trailer with the tires skidding all the way. It wasn't scary, because the car's weight was holding the rear end of the trailer down. Once the car was loaded, reinflating the rear axle tires gradually shifted some weight back onto the tongue, without moving the car at all. Then we lowered the tongue back down slowly. It wasn't really scary, because there was only a little weight on the tongue. It was a see-saw, with one end only a little heavier than the other. Once we were back down and hitched up, we moved the car forward to load the tongue appropriately. A lot of forethought went into this process, focusing on where the weight would be at any given moment. This is why I prefer old cars to new cars.

Last year I bought a stack of Skinned Knuckles back issues on EBay. I enjoy reading them because they remind me of the ingenuity that used to be the hallmark of restorers, and the days when working on cars and trucks was more important than speculating on their value. I also enjoy all of the ads for small companies with their products, inventions, and services. As far as re-using old articles, isn't re-using old stuff what the hobby is all about ?

It might be helpful to unbolt the pump from the block, keeping it connected to the tank, but disconnect it from the carburetor. Work the lever by hand, and see if it pumps fuel. Sometimes a priming doesn't hurt to get things started. If it works OK, then you may have to install the pump on the engine more carefully, to make sure that the lever is resting on the camshaft lobe. When installed correctly, the lever will be spring loaded by tightening the mounting bolts. If it doesn't pump by hand, then you can start narrowing down the possibilities.

Zigmont Billus at the Babbitt Pot in Ft Edward NY, is a pleasure to work with. 518-747-4277 He has many years experience rebabbitting antique automobile engines.

What I have learned is to look closely at the photos. If they are photos of defects and blemishes, then the seller may be trustworthy. If not, then assume that everything that is not in a photo is something the seller might not want you to see. It's so easy to make assumptions, since we'd all like the cars we want to buy to be perfect. When you speak with the seller, don't miss an opportunity to ask them questions that you already know the answer to, just to see how they respond. It's easy to confuse courtesy with honesty. For myself, buying without seeing is a gamble, and that's probably part of the excitement. Crazy, but true. Or just go see the car yourself. It depends on your capacity for risk.

The spreader is in remarkably good shape. Maybe they only used it for Sunday drives.

If you are an international spy but can't afford an Aston Martin with built-in rocket launchers, this could be an affordable alternative. Seen on FaceBook Marketplace for sale in VA.

You'll find a wealth of information on this website https://p15-d24.com/ There is also a blog there called "Keeping up with the AOK Boys" Within that blog is a 4 part section on aftermarket dual carb manifolds. You can find and identify yours there. The gentleman who authored that blog is very knowledgeable about those manifolds....they are in the process of manufacturing an improved version right now. As a previous poster mentioned, you need to have two carbs that are exactly the same, and then have them tuned exactly alike as well.

You mentioned the noise sounding like a heat shield. A loose muffler baffle could sound like that, but you wouldn't see or feel anything loose.

Thanks. Or I could just hold the paper in my fingers I suppose. It was a gadget that caught my eye. I miss seeing the inventions that small time manufacturers used to come up with, as well as their ads. It wasn't that long ago.

Does anyone own a "Kee Sanding Harp", a neat little device made in CalifornKa in the early 2000's ? It looked sort of like a small bucksaw frame, but held narrow emery paper strips. It looks like a handy tool. I came across an ad for it in an old magazine.

Regarding the spacers on the motor mounts, as another poster pointed out, they were dropped into the rubber cushions from above...not easy to do if the engine is in place. You'd have to lift the engine 3". Better to separate the washers from the tube and install it piecemeal. Mine were press fit and swaged. Some are apparently welded. Either way, you just want the tube to prevent over-tightening the bolt. The original design allowed a bit of clearance so that the lower rubber wasn't even snug. That's what helps the mount absorb vibration. Installed correctly, the engine is free to hop up and down on the upper cushion just a tiny bit. The bolt and lower cushion keep it from getting away. Tighten up the bolt to snug and compress the rubber, and you're back to transmitting the engine vibration to the frame. This small point is a surprise, but that's how it was intended to work. I'm guessing that many replacement installations aren't done this way, and don't work nearly as well as they could if done properly. (The cab mounts are similar, but they were installed tight. )

Thanks. I suspect there could be wear in an intake valve or stem, which may have caused the valve to hang up when I slowly rotated the engine by hand. It isn't a problem that manifests itself while the engine is running, or even while it's being cranked at starter speed. But thank you for your interest and for your opinion.

Thanks. The sticking valve has never manifested itself while the engine is running, or even when the engine is cranked by the starter during a compression test. I only experienced it when I was slowly rotating the engine by hand to do the leak down test.

I've been doing a lot of reading regarding compression testing and leak down testing. Although there are differing opinions about many aspects of both, I think I understand the basics at this point. Although the engine runs pretty well, my testing shows I seem to have a problem with cylinder #5. It's consistently 10-15 lbs lower than the other cylinders on a compression test. A leak down test I did last week showed it leaking more than the other cylinders...80% as opposed to 15% in the other cylinders. On all the cylinders the slight leakage hiss can be heard coming from the crankcase and no where else. So I decided to try it again this week, focusing on #5. I hooked up the leak down tester and found air escaping rapidly at the intake. I figured I had the crank positioned wrong, and checked and rechecked. Still air pouring out the carburetor throat, though I definitely had the crank positioned correctly. So I tried a compression test on #5. Still at 75 psi. Low, but not extremely so. So I tried the leak down again. This time I was back to 80% leakage....not great, but all the hiss was from the crankcase, as it had been before. Consistent with the 75 psi compression. It sounds to me like spinning the engine with the starter freed up an intermittently sticking intake valve. Vacuum is steady at 19, with a barely perceptible vibration to the needle. Maybe the valve only sticks when the engine is rotated slowly by hand. Does my diagnosis seem correct, and should I be concerned ?

Well....not quite the final note. Turns out my leak down tester had a design flaw. Once I sort out all that I've read about leak down testing, I'll try the test again. It's turning into a useful education.

A final note...I used a leak down tester and tested the engine cylinders today. All were at 90-95%, so I'm satisfied that everything is OK. I think the leak down test eliminated some of the variables I was dealing with using the compression tester. Thanks for all of the helpful input.

I've never seen the need to change it. It starts with less than one revolution of the engine. Thanks for your question though. Nobody designed the starter system to operate without plugs in the engine. I'll do the test with one or two plugs in, just to slow it down a bit.

Thanks. The engine spins pretty fast with no plugs, so I figure the Bendix is just doing its job. It may also have to do with the gear ration between the starter and flywheel. All of which is immaterial to the compression test. I get pretty even numbers with the plugs in. Not much difference with a wet test. I'm getting around 100 instead of 120 that the specs call for, so I thought with plugs out it might make for a higher reading. Bottom line is there's nothing wrong with the engine...it runs fine.

Thanks. That's exactly what I was wondering. I'm sure that the design and rating of the Bendix drives varied from one model to another . Yours was probably just designed with a stronger spring than mine.

My system is 6 volt. I agree that the Bendix is working fine. My question is whether anyone else had run into a problem trying to do a compression test with all of the plugs out. I've never done a test that way before myself. I decided to read up on compression testing and the consensus was that it be done with all of the plugs out. Wouldn't any engine with a Bendix starter kick out , cranking with no resistance?

I know the kind you are speaking of, where the foot pedal both electrically activates the starter as well as physically moves to engage the gear. I'd have to check my '54 again to be sure what have. I believe that it must have a Bendix drive, as it kicks out even if you keep the starter pedal pressed down. That would make sense, because it also keeps the gears from grinding once the engine starts. As I recall, the foot pedal activates a lever that only serves to make the electrical contact, not engage the gear. So the problem that I am having is just the Bendix doing its job. I'm curious because I would think this would happen to anyone with a Bendix type starter trying to turn the engine over with no plugs in it.

Thanks for the straightforward advice. That's basically what I had planned to do. My starter (foot actuated) kicks out from the speed of turning the engine without plugs. I assume that's the same mechanism that kicks it out when the engine starts. I was curious if anyone else had experienced this problem.

Thanks. I did that but it cranks more slowly and gives a lower reading. Everything I've read says remove all plugs.