Oz Dodge 4

Like others have said, since the 1970s I have always just used brake fluid and have used it successfully on lots of re-sleeved cylinders done with both brass and stainless sleeves, none of which ever prematurely failed.

Unfortunately that's ME ! I have what my nephews and brothers call "old farts music" playing when ever I am in "MY" shed. I like a lot of things mostly from the 50s through to the start of the 70s "disco era" when all interest in modern music "ceased". I am lucky though because we have a small FM radio station that broadcasts into the local area from a college about two miles down the road and at the times I am in the shed it usually plays my sort of music, on my high tech portable radio tape deck that I picked up on a kerbside clean about 10 years ago and is rarely turned off.

ABear is spot on with this, the straps are fine for what they were intended, but lifting a top heavy engine in this unsupported way is just plain "dangerous" If that engine starts to move because the tension has lightened on the straps and the heavy top tries to turn the whole thing can turn and if your arm is between the engine and whatever you could loose it. If I did this where I worked, (and I used straps, chains, engine cranes, forklifts ect at the industrial place I worked) the forman would at best have reamed me a new a#####e, but if anything had happened, I would have been shown the door!

I am unlikely to ever get to Hershey, although it would be wonderful if I could, but I do have a friend that periodically goes over to somewhere in Michigan ! He is into veteran farm tractors and stationary engines, but I am sure he would pick up something if needed, but I have no idea when he will be going over next. I think it's alright to take things like that back, as long as it's in luggage in the hold, not carry on in the overhead lockers. My nephew tells me if it was in the shed it should be in the container "somewhere", so there is still hope. Graham

Thanks Jon, Thats exactly what I needed to know ! I thought it might be something like that after I found out what the numbers meant. I came across it accidentally and paid very little for it so it's no big deal if I can't use it. The A.F.B. seems to be what is on the 289s that "are" out here, it's just that the vast majority of Studes are 259s, and very low compression at that. I have several setups fitted with WWs off 259s, and I always got on well with them when the cars (I have 3) were my daily drivers back in the 80s-90s so I can use them. When I retired, my nephew that took over my house and garage needed the shed I had my Stude parts in and transferred them to a sea container, and I can't find the carby, so there is still a chance the original may turn up, I do hope so as it looks like the Buick unit might be a no go. Unfortunately almost all the Pontiacs that Holdens assembled out here were 283s fitted with 2-barrel Rochester's, I don't think I have ever seen a Pontiac with an AFB! If I want to use one of them I will have to import one from the US, and that can get quite messy. Thanks for taking the time to answer. Graham

My 1963 Studebaker GT Hawk 289 engine has been stored for the last few years while the body has been being repaired, with the accessories being stored in a box, and during that time the original AFB Carter carby has "Walked", probably stollen by one of the visitors to the farm. I have been looking for a replacement but over here, (Australia) 289s are not common, most Studes were 259s, and I have been unable to find a replacement, but last Saturday I got hold of an AFB Carter 3088S which doctor Google tells me is for a 61-63 Buick made for much larger capacity engines than the 289s. My question is will this carb be too big for the standard Stude 289 ? My engine has the low compression 582 heads, standard cam and service bore to .040 with flat top pistons, should be about 8 to 1 compression, what do you blokes think, will this carb work on a fairly standard 289, my other option is to fit one of my several two-barrel WW Stromberg's and manifolds to it. Thanks Guys, Graham

Thanks guys, question well and truly answered, and it looks like I was wrong with my assertion, but with a bit of a qualification ! It looks like Buick did build enough side valves that we can say "yes" they did, but they were mostly either very rare or commercial with the exception of "some" McLaughlin Buicks from Canada. Being in Australia and part of the "jolly olde British empire" a lot of our "US" cars were sourced through Canada for import duty reasons, and "McLaughlin's" were definitely sold out here although I don't remember ever seeing a side valve. Our conversation revolved around four cylinder cars from the teens and twenty's and although actually wrong, I feel I at least have a "little bit" of justification. It's nice to know the truth, so a big "THANKYOU" to those who have replied. Graham

I was at a car do a couple of days ago and someone was talking about a side valve Buick, and I said "Buick never built a side valve engine EVER", and I promptly got shot down in flames by several others that were there, including a good friend who's former father in law was a noted Buick collector. He had most model Buicks from a 1910 two cylinder up until the 1970s and I don't remember him ever having a side valve. OHV was one of Buicks early claims to fame and I still haven't heard of a side valve, Did Buick ever make a side valve engine?

TO RIGHT IT INFLUENCED US ! Dad had three Fords when we were growing up (we are in Australia), A MK 1 Ford Zephyr sedan, a Ford Thames trader truck (both English designs) and an Australian XT Ford Falcon ute, and the one thing they had in common was that they were all piles of unreliable rubbish. Neither my two brothers or I have ever purchased a Ford product, and I intend to keep that record intact !

Struth, that's a "blast from the past" ! I think I remember that film, his car was made to run on "naphtha" if I remember correctly. I don't remember any of the cars being electric though.

Here Here "rocketraider" !! My wife drives a late model Hyundai with just "Halogen" lights, and there is almost no adjustment available because of the way the designer and stylist had decreed the car "must" look. Its been an anoyance to me ever since we bought the car, but as almost all her driving is done in well lit town streets it's not really a problem. A friend of mine fitted the highest powered "HID" conversions he could get into his Toyota Landcruiser for driving on the outback roads he travels on frequently, and after a couple of months he took them out because even on low beam the truckies up North with usually about 5 large driving lights were flashing him because his lights were too bright. He put lower powered HIDs in and it is fine now. I have mid power HID driving (spottys) on the Nissan and they are fine but if you are going to use LEDs on your classics I would advise not to go overboard on the power, even the lower power HIDs and LEDs are quite bright.

It looks like you blokes are very lucky ! I do a lot of night time country driving on second rate roads, so fitted LEDs into my early 90s Nissan Patrol, and they are "great", light up the road really well, and they are also outright "illegal", If I get inspected I will be ordered to remove them before proceeding. I recon they would be just the shot on a faster classic if you are "allowed" to use them.

What's the big deal ! Sounds just like almost all the cars I've sold ! (I just don't brag about it as much 😊)

I recon if you want some good photos, get in touch with the New Zealand transport museum in Invercargill New Zealand. On a recent trip in October, I went through it, and they had "almost" a complete set minus the model B. Photography is not my strong point but you get the idea (I hope)

You can find "similar" horns on farm tractors.