bradsan
-
Posts
258 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Gallery
Events
Posts posted by bradsan
-
-
I'm curious as to the theory behind not installing the pistons without the offset when going to aluminum pistons?
Which begs the question why the offset was there to begin with?
There is a lot of discussion on line about modern performance issues but that probably doesn't apply to these engines. There are also comments on offset reducing piston slap; that might have been more of an issue with cast iron and would make some sense if Buick was trying to make a quieter engine. Later engines didn't have it
I had a set made up by Ross for my 25 Std with a shorter skirt and no offset based on their recommendation. Haven't installed them yet so I can still do something instead of lying awake worrying about making the right calll!!! Wouldn't be the first mistake I've made and likely not the last!
Brad
-
If you are so unlucky ( or perhaps lucky)! to have a make where bushings are not readily available and do not need bushings withe the steel sleeves .........
Do a search for Harris Bushings and find a chart like this one:
http://www.stengelbros.net/Harris-Bushings_c_410.html
Find the closest size to what you need ( ID and OD being the most important as they are the hardest to alter - you can always cut the length down fairly easily on your chop saw/table saw and a wooden dowel inserted in the hole for support , just cut through the dowel)
When you find a size that suits you , search for it and order. I ordered mine from General Spring
http://www.generalspringkc.com/product_p/hb1109.htm
You won't find them on their catalogue page but if you search their site with the bushing number, it will show up.
The steel sleeved bushings have a trade name that escapes me but they can probably be found in a similar manner. A bit harder to modify of course
-
You are talking about the smaller rectangle directly under the copper contact...right?
Find some melamine , you can cut , trim and drill it to size. Put the coloured side down.
I have a very similar switch set up on my vehicle and ordered the gasket to go with a new contact from a reputable parts supplier. The contact looked easy to make out of copper but getting the 'dimple' to match the 'disc' was challenging. Anyway, the gasket they sent me was made of melamine! Wish I'd thought of that first
Brad
-
Now that's my kind of project. Nothing really looks like it fits and appears to have come off several different cars . Rusty parts in boxes. Doesn't run. What's not to like? Except I already have two of those projects!
BTW I'm pretty sure all 1932 Auburn's , 8 or 12 cylinders came with wood or wire wheels. Not sure what might be going on there and that could be a problem unless 'safety concerns' are going to require big fat tires and a Chevy suspension
Brad
-
Maybe try Rare Parts? They rebuilt the pitman arm and tie rod ends for my Auburn. Their work looks fine but car isn't on the road so I can't say it won't all fall apart with the first bump!
Their online catalog lists tie rod ends for a 1931 Series 50 as per attached link ( if it works!)
Not cheap but then that won't be a concern if safety is an issue....right?????!
Brad
-
RP1967 - I'm curious how disconnecting the battery of a Model T, with a properly functioning factory ignition system, going to stop it from being started and driven away
I'm with Matt and Oldengineer on this one, first they have to figure out how to start it and , in the case of a Model T, they have to figure out how to DRIVE it.
Now that would make an interesting bait car video!!
Brad
-
1
-
-
Agree with Leif , cup is 909604, cone is 909504 and the race is 909704. The whole bearing assembly is 909004. Fits 25-26-27-28 Std's and Ser 115
I'm pretty sure I have several inner 909504 cones available. PM me with your contact info if you still need one (or two!)
The only bearing harder to find is the outer. Usually , the race and the cone gets ground up , probably from missing hubcaps. If you have those you'd better lock them in a safety deposit box now because you will never find them! Ever!
Brad
-
Larry
Are you running the stock 1925 exploding pot metal dizzy or have you done the cast iron upgrade from a later year. Reason I ask is if you are running stock, I'd love to know the NAPA part numbers because I think stock took 9MM plug wires as opposed to the 7mm of later ( and more common ) dizzys and I'd love to find some inexpensive spares!!!
Thx
Brad
-
Steve
Attached are photos of two distributors from my swap meet box. The one on the left is a 658B and the other is a 653M. I'm not a Delco Remy expert by any means but to my untrained eye, the body , shaft, drive gear , breaker plate and even the points all look pretty much the same. ( I didn't take a mic to either). The main visual differences appear to be the rotor attachment point ( one is keyed, the other just a flat spot on the shaft) and the manual spark levers. It's possible that the mechanical advances (if they have them) differ in spring and weight size as well but I didn't look inside!!. I'm going to hazard a guess that Delco had a 65XX series distributor and then customized it for each manufacturer. It might be as simple as finding a 65XX distributor and then tracking down the correct cap and rotor. I would think that the dwell is pretty standard for an inline 8.
Brad
-
I'm trying to get side valance panels fabricated for my 1925 25 Touring. My second attempt at finding a shop that could do the work resulted in the loss of the original patterns in the process! ARRGGGH
I traded emails with Peter at Old Era a few years back (yeah, it's a long term project) when he had photos of the same product on his website but the shipping to Canada was a bit of a killer.
Peter looks like he does mostly repro Chevy stuff but he had an extensive listing of patterns for other makes and quite a bit of 20's Buick stuff.
Not sure if he still does the work but I thought I'd ask around before I pester him again.
Hoping someone (especially our Aussie friends) can provide some feedback. If it's any help regarding my expectations, I don't think I'm fussy but to me, a reproduction means just that, not a loose modern interpretation based on limited tooling resources, and I'd expect them to be ready for paint.
As usual, if its good, post it here, otherwise please send me a PM.
Thanks in advance
Brad
-
Terry
I have to confess that I am assuming that the 1924 had the same taillight . No factory literature to support it like I have for the 1925 but that is what I have been told and the car on Youtube seems to support it. .
As for brake light switch , its pretty rudimentary. Here is a picture of a 1925 McLaughlin showing the brake light switch. location. It is sitting on the brake cross lever but actually screws to the floor board above. It's pretty simple with a bellcrank that moves a rod that closes a contact. Completely unsealed , I'm wondering how long they worked for in that location! It's actuated by the wire to the brake pedal. I can try to find where I've placed the switch and post a photo if anyone is interested.
Brad
-
Leon is indeed correct. (Hi Leon)
I have the 1925 McLaughlin parts manual and this is the correct taillight.
You can also add standard factory bumpers and a walnut faced dash which supports McLaughlin's take on the Buick slogan of “Better cars are being built, and McLaughlin is building them.”( Sorry Terry!!!)
Here is a link to the Youtube video af a 24-35 in Quebec showing the same taillight starting at about 2:58. The really weird part is that the stop light portion was originally amber and apparently some of the aftermarket lenses were green! Not confusing at all!!!
The shock absorbers are not stock!!
Brad
-
Steve
Which tires did you install on the Packard? I'm guessing it was the Coker radial since the Diamondback Auburn radial is not yet available ( I've been waiting for three years for these things and getting a bit frustrated. ) So you are running the Coker radial without tubes and have had no problem? My ignorance is probably showing but other than dealing with any potential rim leaks ( from a spoked or riveted rim ) I don't understand what a tube adds to the equation.
What I liked about the Auburn was the they did not 'require' another $100 in tubes on top of what is already $1000 in tires.
John
I got a response from Diamondback two weeks ago and they never mentioned that they were taking orders but they did say that the Auburn radial would be available in Spring. I love the look of the Auburn (if that is indeed what they look like) but, as I have an email chain of 'Spring' promises going back two years, I'll believe it when I see some tires on a car! I've almost given up as have the tires on the car that needed replacing two years ago
Brad
-
If you have a pattern, Kris can reproduce pretty much anything.
http://www.runningboardrubber.com/project_catalogue.html
Brad
-
Maybe the one from this thread?
http://forums.aaca.org/f169/auburn-chassis-engine-nos-132675-2.html
This post appeared right after the car was identified in the general forum.
-
Barry
Appreciate the response. I tend to overthink these things and when it seems too simple, I start to worry what I'm missing , like using a lock washer or even Loctite ( hadn't thought of that!! )
Lots of good info! Keep it coming.
Hadn't thought about stainless fasteners not 'locking' in cast iron with a 'soft 'gasket. Does loctite or bolt prep or even shellac solve that issue?
I get the keeping it original part but I don't know that I could be as patient with the drilling operation as Greg was! I could foresee a broken drill bit in my future but then I guess that would accomplish the same thing as safety wire:).
Brad
-
Barry
Nice work !!! I'm anxiously waiting to see how the concrete holds up to a running engine.
The engine builder stopped a little short, in my opinion. All of the connecting rod bolts and main bolts should have been safety wired. They were torqued to spec, but now need new holes drilled so that mechanic's wire can be passed through the castle nuts and bolts. I was told that they are not to be tightened to the next opening in the castle nut, even if you can see the hole. I just think that should have been done under controlled conditions.
This is one of life''s mysteries for me!
None of our modern cars are safety wired and haven't been since the late 30's. Everything in the bottom end of a modern engine ( not sure about racing applications ) is put together with a nut and a lock washer of some sort. Some are assembled without any washer at all and just use torque-to-yield bolts For originality sake, they should be safety wired but unless the judge is going to ask you to drop the pan, why not just remove the castle nut, install a grade 5 or 8 lock washer and retorque it?
Is it a question of different engine stresses or metallurgy? I'm curious what the thoughts are on this. I used grade 8 lock washers on the con rods of my Model T but it doesn't have enough hours for any sort of scientific analysis! Maybe someone can weigh in on this. There is nothing more stressful than trying to get to that next slot in the castle nut on an old pre-stretched main cap stud! Life would sure be alot easier if lock washers were an acceptable alternative for our old stuff.
Brad
-
John
Fluid in a metal float is usually an indication that they are leaking; which means the float has sunk and is letting too much fuel in via inlet valve. Not sure if your original was cork or metal but you can test you current float by putting it in some hot water. If there is a hole ,any air inside will expand and bubbles will come out. If air can get out, then fuel can get in. Depending on the condition of the float, this can be fixed easily. Just google it. . Basically, gently heat the float to expel the fuel inside and then solder the hole up. Presumably, the car was running at one time with the float it came with.
Brad
-
Barry
This is very cool , especially the price of the product at about $75 ( I know there is a lot of labour as well!)
Do you have an update on the outcome of this procedure?
I have an almost identical issue ( leak and crack not quite so bad but in an identical impossible location ) and was curious what happened after the car was back together and running.
Any issues?
Out of curiosity, if you don't mind me asking some questions:
1) did you consider a lock stitch repair? If you did , why did you rule it out?
2) Looks like you did the procedure in-frame which probably saved a lot of work! What kind of media and equipment did you use for the shot peening? I'm not familiar with shot peening but a quick internet search suggests its a lot different that sand blasting with some equipment out of the reach of most home shops.
How in the heck did you clean up after?
3) Did you leave the pistons and bottom end in or are we just looking at the bare block?
4) I was looking at the web about engine cement and the typical procedure is just to fill the bottom of the water jacket as opposed to coating the entire cavity. The bottom pour is pretty monolithic and I can see it holding fast but aren't you worried about the coating on the cylinders flaking off at some point in time? I can't help but think from a layman's perspective that eventually even a close but different match in coefficient of expansion along with some vibration is eventually going to get the better of the coating.
5) Can Greg give us any idea what kind of cars he has done in the past and how they have held up?
6) do you have any more photos of the process you can share here or PM to me?
Thanks in advance
Brad
-
My 52 Chev came with metal gaiters that were wrapped around a burlap material, Service manual called for attaching a grease nipple and injecting grease every so often.
The metal portion of the gaiters were in the last throes of succumbing to rust. I wonder if you are seeing the vestiges of that system.
I was not about to embark on trying to recreate them! It is a driver.
I just painted between the leaves with Slip Plate and then painted the assembled springs with zero rust/chassis black.
Brad
-
I'm staring at a differential carrier that was about to go back in the rear end of a '52 Chev before I noticed that one of the carrier bearings had spun on its journal.
Everywhere I searched on the internet said the carrier is junk and to toss it. I did find one post that suggested dimpling the journal and using Loctite 630 but, wouldn't you know it , someone already got there before me and the journal was dimpled! No Loctite found however, maybe it didn't exist when they repaired it and most likely that is why it failed again
Having access to a FRM ( favourite retired machinist) I'm wondering if the is any reason not to turn the journal down and resleeve it. Some posts talked about the carrier being hardened but my thought is that it would be just be high strength steel . The journal is just provides for a friction fit and doesn't actually take any wear. The bearing is what takes all of the wear and that is why it is hardened.
Could try and find another carrier but the machinist is close and would be less work.
Thoughts?
Thanks
Brad
-
Just took apart the rear springs on the 52 Chev and got to reading this thread on how to finish them . That meant taking off the gaiters and the felt underneath them. The gaiters are mostly rusted out which drives me nuts because it would be difficult to reproduce the gaiters and I like things back the way they were. Anyhoo, the shop manual has a detailed procedure for lubing them.
While looking for new ones, and before I decided that I didn't have the cash to get new ones, I found the attached on Detroit Easton's website. Take it for what it is worth but it appears that modern springs do not need lube and it is, in fact, detrimental to the steel. Not sure I get that but there you go.
Lots more interesting info on the tech site.
-
Larry
I modified the seal retainer to take a modern seal.
It's a two piece part that is spot welded together so I drilled some holes to keep alignment when it came apart. Used some small machine screws to put it back together with the new seal inside.
Of course you've see current photos of the car so we may never know if this actually works! I am concerned about keeping things concentric; felt is a bit more forgiving in that regard! Hope to find out that this works!
Brad
-
So it would appear to be a mid term change added the hose support .
My1932 Master parts manual shows one for each of the Master and Standard ( different part number of course!) but my copy doesn't reference engine numbers.
If the problem Buick was trying to fix was a collapsing hose, I think I can easily fix that. If it is a water pump support issue , it may be a bit more difficult for me to fix. Not that it matters as a it is currently a static display!
Brad
28 Master Six pistons question
in Buick - Pre War
Posted
Larry
Ross Racing Pistons
http://www.rosspistons.com/
My dad's buddy used them for his 29 LaSalle.
I was going to go with a major antique parts supplier but wasn't happy with the quality of some of the parts I previously received from them ( I think they were having some 'issues' at the time, maybe things have improved since then?)
Ross was helpful, they came with wrist pins and rings (solves the problem of finding rings for stock cast Iron!) If I'm not mistaken, the originals had four rings, Ross reduced it to three because the modern oil rings are vastly superior to the 1925 tech used. Price was a little cheaper than the other firm. That said , they are still sitting in the box 8 years later waiting for me to be the guinea pig!!!
The offset is more than just a few thousands, it is actually quite noticeable.
I worried about the offset when I ordered them. Ross said they could do it either way but their recommendation was to centre the pin bore and get some sleep.
Still, I'm always curious about other opinions.
Brad