ply33

I think Rusty has nailed it with respect to back pressure preventing cavitation at the pump impeller. I have never bought into the "too fast through the radiator" hypothesis. Anyway the result is the same: A working thermostat should be in your car for the cooling system to function properly. Assuming, of course, that your car came from the factory designed to have a thermostat in it. I'd recommend against putting a thermostat into a car that was not designed for one like a Model A or Model T Ford.

I agree with Steve that Rare Parts is a good place to try. If they don't have the parts but you can supply a sample, they can make new ones. The nice thing about that is they then add that part to their catalog and it becomes available for others too. If I read the 1928-33 Plymouth Master Parts List correctly, the same spring shackles are used for the 1928 Q, 1929 U and the 1930 30-U. That might help with cross referencing and finding parts.

Continuing from where hwellens started, the 1931 Chiltons Automotive Multi-Guide lists an interchange number of GU-31 for the 1930 Chrysler 70. That number matches the list given by hwellens but also includes a few more cars: 1925 Chrysler 6 B 1926 Chrysler 70 1927 Chrysler 60 1927 Chrysler 70 1928 Chrysler 62 1928 Chrysler 72 1929 Chrysler 65 1929 Chrysler 75 1930 Chrysler 6 1930 Chrysler 66 1930 Chrysler 70 1930 Chrysler 77 1929 DeSoto 6 1930 DeSoto Finer 6 1930 DeSoto 8 1930 Dodge DC 8 1930 Dodge DD6 1929 Pierce Arrow 133, 134 1930 Pierce Arrow A 1930 Pierce Arrow B 1930 Pierce Arrow C 1930 Plymouth 1928 Studebaker Pres. 8 1929 Studebaker Pres. 8 1930 Studebaker Pres. 8 The 1930 Plymouth gets me into parts books that I have. The 1928 Plymouth is shown having one part number while the 1929-32 Plymouths another. The Chilton's "1930 Plymouth" appears to match up to what most people consider the "1929 model U" nowadays. That used part number 605340 which is shown in the 1928-33 Plymouth Master Parts List as being used on the model U (1929), 30-U (1930), PA (1931) and PB (1932) Plymouths. So it could be that Chrysler part number 605340 superceded part number 50483. (Most of the 60nnnn numbers are for 1933 or up parts, so this is probably a reasonable guess.) Unfortunately, I have not found a more modern cross reference for either part 50483 or part 605340. Nor do the vendors that I normally look at for Plymouth parts show those numbers or cars listed.

Do you have a Chrysler part number for that tappet? It is possible that it was used on other engines and if so the number will help figure that out. I've found that for many mechanical parts on my 1933 Plymouth, I can match the original part number up to modern replacements using the Chrysler part number even if the particular vendor's listings only carry vehicle year based information back to, say, the 1950s.

Wow. Learn something new every day. I just looked in the 1928-33 Master Parts book and saw that before 1933 they seemed to use studs rather than lug bolts and they have separate listings for left and right. Except for Canada. Weird that Chrysler had left hand threaded studs, dropped that for right hand threaded bolts for about 7 years then went to left hand threaded bolts. By the 1960s I know they were using left hand threaded studs. Guess they could not make up their minds on that one. I believe that the left hand threaded fasteners go on the left side of the vehicle but it has been so many years since I've owned a car or truck that did that I am not positive.

Hmmm. I did not think they started the left hand thread back then. My 1933 has right hand thread all around. And the 1936-48 part book only shows right hand threaded bolts until 1940. See Plymouth Replacement Parts Short answer is yes. See my answer to your question on this over at the POC forum http://plymouthbulletin.com/smf/index.php?board=4.0

Last month a screw left in the roadway deflated the left front tire of my 1933 Plymouth. I was glad that I had a spare with air in it otherwise I'd have needed a tow to get home.

Let me know if you find a mistake on my database. Or if you have found cross references to other parts so that I can add it in. It will help the next guy who needs to service/restore an older Plymouth.

See Plymouth Replacement Parts

There are a bunch of those 1930s Chevrolet Leader News films in the Prelinger Archives over at Archive.org. See: Internet Archive Search: chevrolet

I believe that VW had 6v negative ground through 1966. Not sure if 1966 or 67 was the year they went to 12v.

Looks a lot like the connector used for the headlight buckets on my 1933 Plymouth. On mine it is a bayonet style locking mechanism: Push the car/fender side of the piece in a little then rotate just like you would do for a bayonet style light bulb. You can get replacement pig tail assemblies for one and two wire setups but I've never seen one for three wires, so be prepared to clean up and repair what you have. And that is a good reason to not just try to pry the disk out of there.

Here is a link to the took kit used by Plymouth in 1933 and 1934. 1934 Plymouth DeLuxe I am away from my parts books at the moment but part number for the kit is about right for being first used in 1933. Your earlier year will be different but I would not be surprised if it is similar or even if one or more of the individual tools are the same.

Pre which war? My 1933 came from the factory with cam ground aluminum pistons... The less the reciprocating mass the lower the bearing load. So it should help bearing life. But aluminum has different expansion with heat so they would need to be fitted different than iron pistons. Should make no difference on power as you aren't changing the stoke or compression ratio. Might help on responsiveness as there is less mass to speed up/slow down when you change the accelerator position.

By 1933 they were using black cloth covered spark plug wires. Not sure if they were colored or not for 1930. You can get cloth covered spark plug wire from all of the old car wiring vendors. Not sure about a kit. I bought a reel of wire years ago and simply buy the end pieces at my local auto supply store. While you can crimp the ends on with a regular set of pliers I broke down and bought the tool that is designed for it which does a bit better job. See Plymouth Replacement Parts for the cross reference information I know about ignition system electrical parts.

Sounds like the 919045 reflector is set up for a #55 parking light bulb. The Plymouth uses a #63 bulb so it would probably use the 914714 reflector. I'll have to dig out the Plymouth parts book and look through it again, but my recollection is that all the US built versions in 1933 (PC, PD and PCXX) used the same lens. So I would assume they use the same reflector. The reflectors should be in the parts book to but with Chrysler numbers. Interesting to verify if they are the same for all three versions of the car. I assume the numbers you are posting are Twilite numbers not GM numbers. Is that correct?

Mind making a scan of the page(s) in that manual and posting it? As near as I can tell the two sets of lenses differ in only the wording on the bottom. I've put the lens back on my car and don't relish pulling it back off to verify the 8 9/32" measure. Basically they are as near as identical as can be other than the word "GUIDE" on the Chevy version and the two lines saying "TWILITE" AND "HEADLAMP" are moved some to make room for the line saying "GUIDE". It would not surprise me that the reflector is identical between them too: As long as they use the same bulb (a parabolic reflector with the same outside diameter (set by the lens) and focal point (set by the bulb) would have the same overall shape). As long as the mounting mechanism is the same why not have the same part?

Back in town now. The attached photo has a Twilite #915383 for Chevrolet on the left and a Twilite #915283 on the right for Plymouth, GM trucks and others. Both are 8 3/4 by my measure. The only difference I can see is the wording at the bottom of the lens. The Chevrolet reads: While the Plymouth/GM says Turns out that on inspection one of the two lenses on my 1933 is actually the Chevrolet lens. And one of my "good spares" is a cracked Plymouth lens. So I must have swapped it out and forgotten I'd done so. And I've never had anyone point it out to me, not even at a Plymouth Owners Club national meet.

I assume you followed the link I posted and noticed the Chevrolet lens listed as Twilite number 915383 with the same outside diameter as the Plymouth/GMC of 8 3/4 but a "prism diameter" of 8 9/32? I suspect that there is confusion between the physical "outside diameter" and the diameter of the prism area of the lens which is smaller. Since both lenses have the same outside diameter they should physically interchange. The prism pattern/diameter is different which says the beam pattern would be different in someway. I'm still out of town and still promise to measure my lenses when I get home.

I'll be out of town until Monday evening, but if you can wait that long I can measure both my spares and the ones on my 1933 PD. Until then, the information I've gleaned from a number of sources indicate an outer diameter of 8 3/4 and a prism diameter of 7 3/4. See http://www.ply33.com/Parts/group8#614456

Senders are basically variable resistors where the resistance values vary based on float height. So the voltage of the system should not matter. What should matter is the resistance values the dash unit is expecting from the the sending unit. And it also matters what the physical mounting is. (Also from the late 1930s through most of the 1940s Chrysler Corp. used a "two wire" sending unit that is a bit different but as you write of a 1955, I think that does not apply to you.) See Plymouth: First Decade - 1950s Fuel Sending Unit for fitting a modern universal style sender into a 1953 Plymouth. It might be that your 1955 Chrysler would be similar.

I believe there was mention of Kingston vacuum tank fuel pumps, or at least another competitor to Stewart-Warner, in Carl Breer's book about the history of Chrysler Corporation. If I recall correctly, the tanks were a good design but Stewart-Warner had too many patents to fight. And, again if I recall that section of the book correctly, the auto manufacturer's basically got together to get a totally different fuel pump (the mechanical pump) designed and on the market in order to break the expensive monopoly that Stewart-Warner had on them. So the short life of the Kingston pump could be explained by the fact that the buyers of fuel pumps (auto manufacturer's) could see from the lawsuits that a getting a different vacuum tank style pump to market would not be possible so they directed their efforts toward the mechanical pump. But its been a while since I read the book. And the book was a series of historical memories. By one who was there and involved, but memories nonetheless. So the above could be entirely wrong.

It is my understanding that the area pointed to by your right arrow is an oil slinger. It is designed to get most of the oil off the journal and drain it back into the sump. But it is not a seal and I don't think there is any sealing device that is supposed to go there. The area on the left is where the seal is supposed to go. Given how much the engine can leak if that rope seal is not compressed against the crankshaft, I can imagine that if it were missing you'd be losing a lot of oil. I hope you haven't damaged your clutch disk by saturating it with oil....

The 190 cu.in. engine in my PD is very similar to the one in your PG and it has a rope seal that is held by some stamped metal pieces that bolt to the block and bearing cap. One of these days I'm going to have to deal with it again.... It is possible to get rope seal in without pulling the engine but you have to get the flywheel off and even then it is not easy. When mine was in good shape I'd leak about a quart every 3,000 miles. I have heard of engines that did not use oil but my feeling is that most of them will use more oil that we are used to with a modern engine.

Rumor on the net is that the traction batteries last as long as an automatic transmission in a "normal" car, that is the life of the vehicle if properly maintained. My wife's 2001 Prius is still running strong on its original traction batteries. However I developed a bad cell in the battery pack of our 2004 Prius at about 60,000 miles. I don't know the cost of replacement as it was replaced for free (parts and labor), my "cost" was being without the car for a couples of days while they got the new pack in from where ever. I'd be careful doing it myself as high voltage DC with substantial current capability could be a recipe for electrocution or, at the least, inadvertently welding something. We've never been required to get a smog check for either Prius even though we've had the 2001 since fall of 2000 and the 2004 since the fall of 2003. But that is for California, your location may be different. There is a normal service interval for the Prius, every 5,000 miles. Covers things like oil change, rotate tires, etc. "Tune up" is not required at every 5,000 interval but does happen from time to time. All the "normal" things that any internal combustion car needs. I don't have cost numbers in my head. I guess I could fire up Quicken and get reports for both cars as to total cost and do a $/mi calculation. I do have all the numbers (pretty compulsive in some regards). For either you old VW or my Prius the fuel cost is probably not the big ticket item. Depreciation, insurance, registration, repairs, etc. are probably higher than fuel usage. Your older car probably has much lower depreciation, insurance and registration costs per year than the Prius, so I'd guess that unless your repair bill is very high it would be a cheaper car to run than the Prius. I find that the dash MPG computer is usually, but not always optimistic. Also, my generation Prius has a bladder for a fuel tank and does not consistently fill up the same from one "tank" to the next. So the only number that I think makes much sense is total miles divided by total gallons so that the tank to tank filling variation is averaged out. I have also tracked all gasoline purchases and my "real world" gas miles is just a bit over 45 MPG. Your mileage will (not may, but will) vary based on your driving conditions. My "daily driver" is not the Prius but is a 1990s vintage REI Novarra 18 speed bicycle. My guess is that my cost per mile on that is lower than your VW.