scott12180

Members
  • Content Count

    565
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by scott12180

  1. Here's the K&G wheel puller asembled. You screw it on the hub and insert the wedge into the slot on the end, which pushes against the axle end. Then as you drive the wedge, the puller tightens around the hub and pulls the wheel off. If you have one to sell or can help locate one, I'd appreciate hearing from you. --Scott
  2. Ok, so I don't know how to post photographs. I'll try this way --- K & G Wheel puller wanted, just like this one. This fits 2-3/4" hubs on 1920's cars. --Scott
  3. Hi all, Could someone offer a few comments on the roadability and parts availability of a 1932 Buick Model 60? I know of one for sale, but am not a Buick man and have never driven one. Are they good road cars? (compared to, say, a 1938 which I have driven.) What is a comfortable cruising speed? Can an overdrive be installed? And how about parts availability? I know later Buicks have good avaiability of just about everything, but how about the earlier ones? Thanks, --Scott
  4. One car is close (150 miles on the train), the other car is pretty far. Far enough that I am beginning to doubt that I will be able to go see it, as appealing as it is. Can someone comment on the reliability of the column shift, a first for 1939? What is a comfortable cruising speed without overdrive? And are overdrives available for these cars so that I could install one later, or are they just about non-existant? Someone said that for 1939, the one I want is unique to that year. --Scott
  5. I've been concerned about using lap-only seat belts in any car. I'm no expert, but it seems to me that in a head-on crash, the lap belt will cause your body to "jackknife", throwing your chest against the steering column and head who-knows-where. That doesn't sound gentle. Didn't someone do a study years ago concluding that lap belts can be worse than no seat belt at all? I would think that if you want to install seat belts that the lap+shoulder is the only way to do it. Hard to do on an open car, though. --Scott
  6. The condition of the two cars is similar but not the same. They both are on the road and ready to drive. The 120 is low(lower) milage at 44,000 and allegedly quite a nice all original, well preserved and well taken care of car. Blled as needing nothing. The Super 8 is higher milage at 88,000 and has a few minor issues like upholstery, steering wheel, etc. Probably little problems associated with high milage will come up. But it is also billed as a daily driver, needing nothing. Neither car has had the engine rebuilt, to my knowledge. --Scott
  7. Hi. Can comeone tell me the differences between a Packard 120 and the Super Eight of 1939? Am I right that by 1939 they used the same bodies? Is the chassis the same except for the engine? If I have an opportunity to buy either one, any recommendations for someone who wants a reliable daily driver car? Thanks -- Scott
  8. Hi all, I'm going to look at a Packard 120 that is for sale. Can someone give a few comments on the reliability, driveability, parts availability, etc. of the 120 model? This car is a 1939. Any commments on things to look for or watch out for on a 1939? Is there a year people think is a better year or best year for the Packard 120? I'm looking for a good "daily driver" car and not a show car. Appreciate your thoughts --Scott
  9. I'm working on a 1926 Packard Eight. I need to make new valve spring retainers and keys for the slotted valve stems because the original ones were discarded by a previous owner. Do I need to make these spring retainers and valve stem keys out of hardened steel, or can they be non-hardened steel? SHOULD they be NON-hardened?? MUST they be hardened? I bought the keys from Egge but am surprised that they are a very soft steel. Our machinist thinks there is no need for the retainers and keys to be hardened because there is no movement between mating surfaces. Only inertial loading. A friend in the restoration business thinks they should all be hardened. Any opinions? --Scott PS: The original Packard spring retainer (the only one I have) appears not to be hardened.
  10. I'm working on a 1926 Packard Eight. I need to make new valve spring retainers and keys for the slotted valve stems because the original ones were discarded by a previous owner. Do I need to make these spring retainers and valve stem keys out of hardened steel, or can they be non-hardened steel? SHOULD they be NON-hardened?? MUST they be hardened? I bought the keys from Egge but am surprised that they are a very soft steel. Our machinist thinks there is no need for the retainers and keys to be hardened because there is no movement between mating surfaces. Only inertial loading. A friend in the restoration business thinks they should all be hardened. Any opinions? --Scott PS: The original Packard spring retainer (the only one I have) appears not to be hardened.
  11. Hello -- I am working on a 1926 Packard Eight and am interested in any parts that may be available. I would espcially like to find a parts car, a complete chassis or an engine. Also a radiator shell and headlamps. --Scott
  12. Hello -- I am working on a 1926 Packard Eight and am interested in any parts that may be available. I would espcially like to find a parts car, a complete chassis or an engine. Also a radiator shell and headlamps. --Scott
  13. I wonder if that figure of 0.08 is accurate, or even at all based on fact. I believe that it is a fabrication by the defense lawyers to exonerate their client and shift all the blame onto the Duesenberg. I mean, it is very suspicious that the intoxication limit is 0.08 and the Duesenberg driver's blood alcohol was also 0.08. But even if the driver was intoxicated, it in no way should legitize the crime of the Volvo driver. --Scott
  14. I'm working on a 1926 Packard Eight. I posted to this group (probably the Packard or Classic group) before on this engine. I've rebabbitted all eight rods, checked the mains and they are all good with 0.002" clearance, I'm having the cylinders bored and new pistons installed, a couple new valves, a handfull of new guides....etc. Since the mains are all good, I don't want to pull the crankcase out --- too much for me to handle in my garage. So, I'll remove of as much sludge as I conveniently can. All this started with a subtle knock that went away when oil pressure built up. I'm glad I paid attention to that knock. I found so much loose and amiss in that engine, even though I bought the car with the understanding that the engine had been rebuilt. Somebody did have it apart, but they did a truly half-assed job. It's a testament to these old iron L-heads that they will run as well as they do with so much wrong inside. --Scott
  15. If you are rebuilding a large old engine (1920's) but not removing the crankcase and crankshaft --- leaving the crankcase in the car --- what would you do about the accumulated oil sludge which coats everything in the crankcase? Wipe it off as best you can with kerosene and a cloth, or just leave it alone and let detergent oil gradually clean it off? I hate putting the engine back together with all the sludge inside, but some people have warned that it you disturb it, what you can't remove could come off in chuncks which would be bad. --Scott
  16. Hello, Can someone tell me the original compression height (wrist pin center to top) of a piston for a 1st or 2nd series Eight Packard, 1925-1926? (3-3/8" bore.) Perhaps someone has an original Packard piston that can be measured? Thanks --- Scott
  17. Thanks for the advice. Kanter has mostly parts for post-1929 cars, so they were no help. However, Olson's in Seattle did have NOS gaskets. So I'm all set. Thanks very much. --Scott
  18. Hello, Can someone suggest where I could find a head gasket for a 1926 Packard Eight Cylinder engine? Second series Eight, Model 236. Thanks very much --- Scott
  19. My oil pressure with the worn bearings was as high as I wanted it. In other words, I could increase the pressure to beyond 50 pounds, if I set the pump that high. When driving, the pressure would stay the same. Very little variation. After some experimenting I found that 40 pounds was a comforable pressure and left it there. Older Packard connecting rod bearings have no side play on the crankshaft journal. The babbitted rod bearing sits quite confortably into a recessed space on the crankshaft eliminating side play. That could be why oil pressure remains high even if the rods are as much as 0.006". The answer the other question about side tabs on inserts in such an engine may also have to do with the no-sideplay aspect of these engines. I do not know anything about putting inserts into older engine, so like the man said, advice here is worth what you paid for it. We have had some good advocation for insert bearings on this thread. I thank everyone for their thoughts. Much appreciated. I would suggest that someone considering inserts on an older engine find a professional rebuilder of good reputation who does NOT like inserts and ask them why. I'll bet their answer will be very interesting. At the very least, it will allow you to make ann informed decision either way. (And please post their response here ! ) --Scott
  20. I do agree that insert bearings in the connecting rods are probably the best way to go. There are those in the professional business who disagree, however. My own feeling is that babitt for bearings in older engines is fine provided that you do not run the engine too hard. There are businesses that specialize in replacing babitt -- "The Babitt Pot" in Glens Falls, NY is one. If the babbitt is relativly new, then if run hard or under large clearances, it will "pound out" producing ever larger clearances. If the babbitt is ancient (from the 1920's or earlier) and the rods get too loose the babbitt will shatter like glass. Old babbitt has larger crystal grain sizes versus new babbitt, hence it looses its plasticity. Very much like bending a copper or aluminum rod back and forth until it breaks. The grain sizes on the fracture surface will be significantly larger than in the base metal. It is true that with a five-inch stroke you are placing alot more stress on the rod bearings than a shorter stroke. The answer is to drive your anqique car as if it were an antique car. Slowly. If you do not have high speed gearing or an overdrive, keep speeds below 35 mph. On my Packard with an overdrive, I never get it above 45. With babbitt connecting rods, you can "take up" the bearing a small amount if there is excessive clearance. This was standard procedure back in the old days. Again, I believe the key to driving a car with these kinds of repairs is to keep the rpm's down. If you need to get on the interstate occasionally or keep up with traffic on congested roads, then definitely do whatever it takes to upgrade the engine. I do agree that the very best is to have your engine done fully by a profesional. That costs big bucks, though, that many of us don't have. You can drive and have a whole lot of fun by doing a few minor repairs on your own. Take off the pan and clean all the sludge and make sure the oil pump works well. I think it's OK to take up the rods. If you've got reasonable compression, it's OK to drive it without new pistons, rings, valves, etc. Once again, it's OK to do these things provided that you are vigalent about driving slowly and gently. Resist the popular temptation to rev up the engine, have jackrabbit accelleration and cruise at 60 in a largely original 80 year old engine. My $0.02 --Scott
  21. Very interesting. I didn't know about that detail of early Chrysler brakes. Thanks. You're right -- even the first Model T's had internal expanding rear brakes, but they were simply cast iron shoes, no lining, operating against pressed-steel drums. Hardly worth anything even in an "emergency". They were OK as parking brakes, though. Four wheel brakes were like the electric starter. Once one major manufacturer started to use it successfully, soon everyone had to have them to stay in the game. I'm not an expert here, but I would guess that by 1925 most manufacturers had four wheel brakes. Hydraulic brakes were another story. Some adopted them very early, while others held out for years. Ford had cable mechanical brakes until 1939, but even Packard didn't adopt hydraulic brakes for its senior line until 1938 (?). Pierce Arrow was another to use mechanical brakes for a long time. Bugatti another... And these are big names in the industry. Personally, I like cable-mechanical brakes on my cars. Yes, a little more annual maintenance, and you need to know how to adjust them properly, but when working well, they really do a great job. Hydraulics suffer from rust, deterioration of the seals, cracking in the hoses, etc. And as they said back then "One little leak makes all four brakes fail." Getting good seals was probably the challenge back in the 1920's and 30's. I don't think they had O-ring technology back then. Or if so, it wasnt' like it is today. As an aside, today most braking is done on the front wheels, something like 70%. Back in the 1920's, engineers either didn't appreciate the physics or they were simply afraid of putting that much stress on the front wheels. My 1926 Packard does about 65% on the rear wheels, 35% on the front. The mechanism assures that you never get more braking on the front than the rear. Interesting topic. --Scott
  22. Although I can't answer your questions accurately, I can say that Packard began to use four wheel brakes made by Bendix in 1923. They were internal expanding, three shoes --- two self-energized for the forward drection, one for reverse. Chrysler adopted four wheel brakes with its new Six in 1924 (January 1924). They used Lockheed and I'm sure they were internal expanding. --Scott
  23. This reply is carried over from "Stink'en NY inspection stickers!" "Silverghost" replied that he was insured through JC Taylor when he was 17 years old. I was too, except I was only 16 when I first put my Model T on the road. Only problem: that was about 30 years ago. When I registered my 1926 Packard two years ago, all of the antique car insurance companies I contacted had exclusions for anyone under 25 years old. No one would insure a younger driver and there was nothing to be done about it. If you are under 25, you aren't allowed to drive an antique car. Huh??? I don't have a kid that age so it doesn't effect me directly, but since I was rebuilding Model T's and driving them at 16, I really am concerned for the future of the pre-war car hobby if young guys are not allowed to drive old cars. They are already so caught up with computers and, with very few exceptions, have very little interest in cars these days. I'm a professor at an engineering school and always show photos of the Packard to my class. You would expect that here of all places there would be guys interested in old cars. But out of nearly 1000 students I've had over four years, no one has shown any interest. --Scott Troy, NY
  24. Hi, I have a 1926 Packard Eight. What should the connecting rod bearing clearances be? These are the original babbit bearings. I have measured 0.004 - 0.006" on two rods so far. Is that excessive? What can I do? There are no shims in the caps. I do have a knock on start-up which disappears when oil pressure builds, and that odd noise I sometimes hear around 25 mph I am now thinking may be the rods. Thanks --- Scott
  25. Hi, I have a 1926 Packard Eight. What should the connecting rod bearing clearances be? These are the original babbit bearings. I have measured 0.004 - 0.006" on two rods so far. Is that excessive? What can I do? There are no shims in the caps. I do have a knock on start-up which disappears when oil pressure builds, and that odd noise I sometimes hear around 25 mph I am now thinking may be the rods. Thanks --- Scott