• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Pierce66

  • Rank
  • Birthday 03/27/1940
  1. I agree - of course it dosnt make any sense to be historically accurate in the preservation / restoration of old cars. Why stop at the finishes ? Why not use modern materials in the chassis, engine, transmission, electrical systems ? C'mon...be serious...within the context of the AACA and the CCCA, we are supposed to be interested in ACCURATE history and restorations. Many of us, myself included, are ALSO hot rodders and customizers, taking advantage of so much of what modern technology has blessed us with. But...that is not what we do HERE as auto HISTORY buffs! I DISagree with you as to your belief that you can make the modern "two part with clear coat" LOOK like an authentic lacquer job. Again, I just took delivery on a beautifully restored '28 Rolls Phantom. Marvelous "two part with clear coat" paint job. I am sure when I exhibit it at public auto shows, where people go to impress other people with how shiny their cars are, it will do well in the "people's choice" category. My '38 Packard Twelve was re-painted with the correct nitrocellulose lacquer. Again, I submit even the UNtrained eye can spot the richer, admittedly "less shiny" finish. But dont you see - again, if we are seriously interested in the goals of AACA, the CCCA, and the various other historically-oriented organizations, we should try and PRESERVE history and re-finish our cars ACCURATELY. Incidentally, if you think it is EASY to paint with these new "two parts", you are in for a big surprise. I trained as a body and paint man back in the early 1950's under a man who had been the paint shop foreman for the Murphy Body Company during the classic era. So I think I know JUST A BIT about refinishing techniques. I can ASSURE you, the two part finishes are MUCH "fussier" to get that right balance of a good level finish, between "orange peel" and "run" (known as "painter's tears). Again...let's think about what we are doing here as AACA and CCCA members...we have to be honest and recognize technology keeps producing better and better materials thru out the construction and finishing of automobiles. BUT THAT IS NOT WHY WE ARE HERE ! Dog Spot
  2. For Skyking: Of COURSE you are correct- lacquer IS a "thing of the past". Which is precisely why it should be used on cars of the past ! At the risk of repeating myself, of COURSE the modern two part paints, "topped" with a "clear coat", are far more durable and glossy than the finishing materials of the 50's and earlier. That is the POINT ! They are SO much "better" than the historically correct finishes, they are OBVIOUS even to the un-trained eye. Even the untrained eye will notice the difference in the way light reacts to a correct laquer or "synthetic enamel" paint job, than a modern high gloss clear coated "two part" finishing system. After re-finishing a car, I always keep enough left over, so that I have the same batch available to re-finish a good portion of the car should damage repair be necessary. I recently re-shot a fender on my collector car, with the same batch of thinned lacquer I painted it with in the 1970's. No problem ! ( Of course I properly seal my surplus paint before long-term storage !) So the argument about lacquer becoming obsolete, even if true (which it isnt - you can get lacquer just about anywhere if you know where to look) is not a good argument for using "modern" materials. Now - let me qualify all this - my latest aquisition ( a '28 Rolls Phantom ) has been beautifully restored using a modern "two part + clear coat" finish. Of COURSE it looks "too shiny", but if you are more interested in impressing some idiot who knows nothing and could care less about history that's what you SHOULD do. The other good reason for using a "two part", is if you are planning to use your "collector car" as a daily driver and/or dont have indoor storage. Under those circumstances, of course I would recommend the FAR more durable modern finishes. All depends on what your personal priorites and choices are. Dog Spot
  3. Here's something to think about. Air conditioner blowers, if they are going to be large enough to push enough air fast enough to handle the incredible heat loads of cars of earlier eras, (especially if they are of darker, as in "radiation absorbing" colors), are going to take a LOT of electrical power. The largest 6 volt generators you normally find in typical production cars produced around 32 amps. That would be the same electrical power as a 12 volt system prodcing 16 amps. Ever seen a 16 amp. 12 volt system (either generator OR alternator...!) See my point ? The solution ? Those small highly reliable internally regulated "small case" Delcos from the 70's produce SIXTY amps - most cars today have MUCH MUCH more electical power in recognition of the high power drains of air conditioning. As Chuck notes, some people have figured out a way to make an air conditioning system work on 6 volts. I do not know how they do it - never seen one myself - I have a lot of questions on how well this actually works out in service. Biggest problem, as noted above, is the question of raw electrical power - again, you are going to need a LARGE system to competantly handle the heat loads. Then, on top of the power demand of the blower, what about the magnetic clutch for the compressor? To my knowledge, no such thing as a 6 volt compressor clutch. The pre-war Babcock system used in those Packards and Cadillacs so equipped, were "direct drive" units, in which the only way to turn the compressor off, was to disconnect its drive belt. I do not know how they did it on the '53 - '53 Packards - which, of course, were 6 volts - perhaps someone with one of these with "factory air" can tell us. I concur with the other posters in this "thread" who suggested adding a 12 volt alternator. The "small case" Delcos you can find in any auto parts store for about fifty bucks are internally regulated. You should be able to cobble up a bracket to mount the compressor so it wouldnt intefere with or look too out of place. You wouldn't need a very large battery - as once the engine is even idling, you'll have enough electrical power to run the system. Yes, there IS going to be some ingenuity required to fit a large enough condensor in front of the radiator. And I concur with Chuck's notes about cooling capacity issues. A quick point on cooling capacity. There is a REASON why the older cars had such massive cooling systems. Has to do with thermal effiency. The lower the compression, the more energy comes out as heat, and the less comes out as mechanical energy. You will HAVE to revise your cooling system with a modern heavy duty radiator core, and build a radiator shroud if your car dosnt already have one. You will also need a "fast idle" system to add throttle when the compressor engages. Modern cars do this thru their computer systems - cars of the 1960's had a system you could probably adapt - a vacuum powered throttle advance. Going to be an interesting project - keep us posted ! Dog Spot
  4. For B.H: Well-written post - for once, we are in COMPLETE agreement ! Dog Spot !
  5. For Packard V-8: Your information is correct as to the era of generator you are familiar with. Suggest you review maintainence manuals from the era this fellow's car is from. Dog Spot
  6. Will be interesting to see what kind of power you get out of that thing now, what with BOTH your armature and field coils being re-wound. Should be MUCH more durabile with modern insulation; hopefully, the voltage wont be TOO high. If the voltage is much above 7.8, I would suggest you have them re-wire it to take a modern (meaning post 1935) full VOLTAGE AND AMPERAGE regulation. If it is LESS than about 7.8 volts, only thing left for you to do is determine how much CURRENT (meaning AMPERAGE) you want, that is both consistent with your driving habits (obviously, for night driving you'd want more amps, but you'd have to leave your lights on during EXTENDED day-time driving to avoid over-charging), or a lower setting if you are just doing mostly day driving. SPOT
  7. What can you tell us about what was done to your generator ? Were the field coils re-wound ? Armature re-wound ? Modern materials will be MUCH better able to handle higher temperatures, meaning you can run with a higher charging rate than originally contemplated. Any good-sized electronics store should carry an inexpensive voltmeter. You already have an ammeter built into your car, which may or not be EXACTLY accurate - but dosnt matter. To accurately monitor the "health" of your generator, you need to know the VOLTAGE your generator is putting into the system. Assuming a given amperage, the higher the voltage, the 1) faster your batter will charge BUT 2) the quicker you will come to that point at which the battery will be OVER-charged and start "gassing" or bubbling out its acid solution. Here's what I would do. I would set that third brush to just a bit above "factory", and then monitor it - to see how fast the battery starts to get warm to the touch, how hot the generator gets (should get quite warm after a half hour or so of charging, but NOT too hot to touch ). And I'd be watching to see the voltage wasnt up beyond, say 7.5. Sounds like a lot of trouble ? Well...now you know why the industry went to external current and voltage regulation ! You have to be a bit more "involved" in the operation of older cars, than the newer ones, where more is done for you automatically. In the old days, people often ran with their lights on during the day on long trips, to prevent over-charging. Dog Spot
  8. Interesting ! You SURE this is a legit. Packard item ? I dont ever recall seeing ANYTHING like that. Bear in mind there was a lot of "funny stuff" on cars that makes no sense today. For example, how many of you have seen an extra spark plug on an INTAKE manifold. That was a common thing on many cars of that era ( Packard called its version the "Fuelizer"). It was because the Ried Vapor Pressure of the fuel was so low....manufacturers had all kinds of wierd ways of getting a car started on a cold day. One way..was to hit the fuel/air mixture with an extra "charge" as it went thru the intake manifold into the engine. Another way is the rather wierd "starting carbuerator" on my Rolls Royce from that era. Yes...an actual separate carb. just for starting. Of course with today's fuels and their higher vapor pressure, this makes no sense. But that was then. Hope someone can explain that wierd thing to us. SPOT
  9. For BH and his "followers": I really am sorry you and some of your friends feel so passionately about those issues about Packards that you cant stand to see discussed. Again, I think B.H. has performed a valuable service for those people by publisizing this "ignore" feature. So USE it ! Don't you guys realize, that the louder you make your accusations that I would engage in inappropriate speech, "bashing", vulgarity, etc, the more people are going to become curious and read my posts ? If you dont want conflicting ideas discussed, STOP MENTIONING them and people who provide them! The "what if" designs for Packards after the failure of Packard, are certainly an interesting subject for discussion. I dont understand why you react so passionately to a discussion of the BACKGROUND of those fantasies. But that is your business. Again, I suggest you pay more attention to what information you can provide, and learn, from this marvelous form of communication, USE the IGNORE feature to keep out thoughts and ideas you feel are hostile to your belief system, and STOP mentioning me ! You are wasting people's time ! And, more important, this "hostilty" bit you are engaging in, could very well be a "turn off" to the very people we would like to bring into our hobby. Dog Spot
  10. Hey Chuck - about that government clerk who wanted to call your classic a "Ford"....you dont suppose...she was on to something....! (ha..couldn't resist that...!) Seriously, Chuck, I hope you dont think your great state has a monopoly on government employees who have limited vision when it comes to dealing with old vehicles...! When I brought my '36 American La France V-12 into California for the first time, the DMV clerk refused to accept the paper-work - let me explain something to our younger readers - the idea of a many-digit "Vehicle Identification Number" on a plate affixed to the top of the dash, is relatively new, starting with a then new Federal law in the 1960's. Prior to that, a manufacturer could assign any kind of number/letter combo. it wished, and THAT is what wound up on your title. In my case, ALF had a FOUR digit number, mine happens to be "7755". The clerk didn't like that - wanted more digits - wanted the "VIN" (again, that only dates back to the 1960's). I told her several times that the number #7755 was the CORRECT number, the only one assigned by the manufacturer, and that is what she was to use on the new California title, just as the vehicle had been titled for so many years by other jurisdictions. It gets worse. She insisted I go back outside to the fire engine, and "just look up on top of the flat portion of the dash-board, it has to be there". I explained to her it is an "open cab" vehicle..there IS no "flat portion" on top of the dash-board...dosnt exist !". Well...she said,very huffy..."you will just have to write the manufacturer, and get a letter from them explaining why they did not comply with the VIN law". I explained to her that American La France's factory was long closed, and the plant razed to the ground LONG before - there was nothing ..nobody there to write to. HONEST...she said VERY tersely..."THAT'S NO EXCUSE".....! Dog Spot
  11. I think B.H.'s discovery that there is a mechanims for him and others in his group to IGNORE ideas he dosnt like to hear, is an excellant solution to his problem. Obviously, his attempt to silence those who disagree with him, has failed. His repeated claims of "bashing" and other inappropriate chat-room behavior have only encouraged others to read the so called "offending" posts, to find the only "offense" is disagreeing with BH ! So - B.H. finally did come up with the best solution for all of us. Those who want to silence information they disagree with, now have a way to do it, without inteferring with the right of legitimate car buffs who enjoy exchanging ideas. Congradulations ! Dog Spot
  12. Hmm...a car whose name rhymes with "FORD"....... Spot
  13. Bill P - Regarding your comment on connecting rod bearings - you might be interested to know that a much wider variety of bearing materials than you indicated, is available for 'insert' type rod bearings, depending on the application. As you may know, Federal Mogul and Packard pioneered the "copper-lead" concept, and this has worked out so well down thru the years, it is still the first choice for long life/high load applications. Many manufacturers have offered aluminum and even silver combinations. I have confidence in Shawn - he has been around old cars long enough to know that each era's technology has to be dealt with - again , you can bet he isnt going to drive a 1930 car the way he could have driven his '41. I am sure you know that a 1930 car is light-years behind a 1940 car in terms of, for lack of a better term..I will just call "driveability". Of course you know Shawn's prior classic, a '41 Cad., was essentially a modern car, in that it had hydraulic brakes, independant front suspension, and most important, a much 'higher' (lower numerically) final drive ratio, and, of course, "insert" type connecting rod bearings. Shawn is an experienced old car buff, thus is fully aware that steady speeds that would destroy a 1930 car can be enjoyed in a 1940 car - isn't it interesting how much changed in only ten years of auto technology ! I am pleased that you had the opportunity to see the exchange between Shawn and I over his "new" Packard. As you may know, Shawn and SOME of his friends have significant differences with me on certain aspects of Classic Car Club Of America policy. But as you have seen here, in the best tradition of the old car hobby in general, and CCCA members in particular, all that fades into the background when we start bouncing ideas off each other about our cars, and how we can help each other enjoy them. None of us individually has "all the answers". Together, we have a lot more fun, and life with old cars gets a lot easier ! Dog Spot
  14. Installing an over-drive is not a major problem. You have plenty of space to do it. I recommend you build a sub-frame for the overdrive, then RUBBER MOUNT the sub frame. Bolting the over-drive rigidly to a metal frame WILL transfer gear noise, and that can be an annoyance. Yours is a fairly heavy car, with a motor that is not all that powerful. The "stock" final drive ratio would be just right for modest city driving. With a high speed rear end, you might find the car a bit sluggish. Good luck ! Dog Spot