Rusty_OToole

No I think you are right. My point is the low chassis design would be obvious, given the low drive shaft of the worm drive axle. The axle is the key to the whole chassis design. So who designed the axle? The concept of a worm drive axle was not new, it had been used on trucks for years. What was new, was the low friction worm gear that made the high speed worm drive practical. So where did that come from? There is always the possibility Moscovics saw the Da Vinci blueprints although he says he did not. The Da Vinci was a much smaller car and would not have stood a chance in the marketplace as a Stutz. Booth admits Stutz did not copy a single patented feature but says they did copy his concept. But if the concept was obvious given the worm drive what is left of his claim?

Ike was a General who knew how to get things done.

First born I believe you are right, for a bare engine, rebuild engine or "long block" without accessories. A complete engine as removed from a car, with generator, starter, manifolds, carburetor etc would be somewhat heavier. Likewise, 75 pounds for the manual trans would be about right. But the flywheel on those engines was no featherweight, the bellhousing was iron, the clutch heavy, even the throwout bearing made for years of hard wear. The difference between a bare engine, and a complete engine and transmission assembly as removed from a car could be quite substantial. A crate big enough and strong enough to hold such a power plant, made of green hardwood as such crates usually are, would also be no light weight. It would be easier to estimate with more facts to go on. Of course, the definite answer could best be arrived at by weighing the crated engine assembly.

I should think the motor would go about 50 to 57 stone, depending on whether it is complete with starter, generator, carburetor, air filter, and oil filter or not. Manual trans, clutch, flywheel, bellhousing 14 -19 stone, Dynaflow 22 stone. The bigger Roadmaster engine would be another 7 stone. Crating for shipment to Australia, at least 15 stone.

I should think it would be all of that and a bag of crisps. My guess, 700 - 800 lbs for the motor, depending if it has the generator, starter, air filter, carburetor, and oil filter on it. Manual transmission, flywheel, clutch, bellhousing, 200 - 250 lbs. Dynaflow, about 300 libs. Be interesting to see how close we came.

We already knew Timken supplied axles and brakes for Stutz. Timken was one of the biggest manufacturers of axles and bearings for cars and trucks at that time. What I want to know is, did they steal Booth's high speed worm drive? Did they get it from some other source, like David Brown? Or invent it themselves? If both Booth and Moscovics got the idea of the low slung, worm drive chassis from Timken then Booth's claims have little or nothing to go on. But if Booth patented a unique worm drive design before Timken, then it looks like Timken and Moscovics stole the idea from Booth. This is where the court cases are unclear. They held that Booth's patent rights were not violated. Yet they said the overall concept was Booth's. Even though the concept was not patentable, and would have been obvious to anyone skilled in the art of auto design and manufacture.

The underslung worm drive would naturally lend itself to a lower chassis and body. This would suggest itself to any auto designer at once. In fact i can`t think why he would use the worm drive, if not for this purpose. The salient point is the HIGH SPEED worm drive, for use in cars. This was a new innovation. The question is, whose? Was it invented by Booth, by Timken, or did both invent it at the same time? Or were they influenced by Lanchester, David Brown or some other source? Seriously, I would like to know where they got the worm drive. To me it is the key to the whole controversy.

They are a cool car and one that is seldom seen these days. The Breezeway window is a unique feature. They say driving with all the windows open on a hot day is like taking a cruise on the lake in a Chris Craft. Most mechanical parts are shared with the full size Ford which makes getting parts easier. The modified carburetor may be the root of your problems. I suggest exchanging it for a rebuilt 4 barrel. 4 barrel models generally get better mileage than 2 barrels anyway. Provided you don't step on the gas hard enough to open the extra 2 barrels. The primaries of the 4 barrel are actually smaller than the 2 barrel carb. A tune up couldn't hurt. This means new points, condenser, spark plugs, and possibly air filter, spark plug wires and distributor cap in addition to the carburetor. A good mechanic who is familiar with the older models, should have that motor running like a Rolls with a jet engine. You might also consider replacing the fuel pump if it has not been replaced or rebuilt. The old pumps were not made for modern gas containing alcohol and soon fail if exposed to it. But if the pump has been replaced since the 80s it should be OK. The brakes should be gone over by a good mechanic. As the car only has a single master cylinder it is important that everything be in perfect working order. In fact the car should be checked over from end to end. Pay attention to things like rubber hoses under the hood. Rad hoses, heater hoses, gas lines, vacuum lines get mummified with age especially when exposed to engine heat. Not a bad idea to replace them every 20 or 25 years on general principles. If everything is in top shape, it should be a very reliable and long living car. Ford made a big thing of the quality and longevity of their cars at that time, being the first with sealed ball joints and steering joints that only needed lubrication every 20,000 miles, self adjusting brakes, and other features aimed at long trouble free service.

There is a video on Youtube showing Tom McCahill supervising tests of 1958 Chrysler cars vs. comparable GM cars. The Chrysler products sailed through the torture tests, the GM cars folded under the strain. You can see the doors flying open on the Cadillacs and refusing to close again because the bodies are so badly bent by walloping over some big bumps. Air bags popping on the Buick, springs and shocks breaking on the Lincoln. Worth mentioning too, is the fact that the Chrysler cars went through the torture course 3 times to their rivals' once. Yet by Chrysler standards, the 57s and 58s were not nearly as strongly built as earlier models. Still they are a lot tougher than anything GM made.

Just went through this whole thread again. I find it significant that nearly all the stories of cars breaking in 2 or 3 pieces, being crushed beyond recognition etc. involve Chevs or in a few cases, Mustangs. Never a Chrysler, Imperial or even a Dodge. The 58 and 59 Chevs have proven to be flimsy and easily destroyed in an accident, the frames and bodies just don't have the strength, which engine they have makes little difference, although I suspect the V8 would be more likely to be shoved into the passengers' laps in an accident while a 6 might not, if the car was hit a glancing blow. Chevs from the sixties and seventies also have frames that tend to rust out over the rear axle and break, even without being in an accident. Once I asked a guy who ran the crusher at a junkyard what car was hardest to crush. He answered without hesitation "an old Dodge or Chrysler".

Do not use 30 oil or transmission fluid. Chrysler recommended their own Fluid Drive fluid (no longer available) or 10W motor oil. Thicker oil will not work better, if anything thinner oil will work better and create less friction drag. Many of us use TDH tractor fluid, ISO22 or ISO32 grade. TDH stands for Transmission, Differential and Hydraulic. ISO22 is a little thinner than 10W, ISO32 a little thicker. ISO22 probably better but ISO32 easier to get. In any case, not much difference between the 2. Chrysler never recommended changing the Fluid Drive, just topping it up every 10000 miles if necessary. There is an access plate on the right side of the transmission tunnel directly under the dash board. Remove the plate, you will see the bellhousing with a metal knockout plug. Pry out the plug. Turn the engine by *bumping* the starter until the fill plug comes into view. Stuff a rag around the hole and take the plug out with a socket wrench. The rag is to save you from dropping the plug down inside the bellhousing. Ask me how I found this out lol. Top up the oil until full. The fill hole is located so you will have the correct amount of air space. As the Fluid Drive is a sealed unit, it must have some air space to allow for heat expansion. The level is not critical. The Fluid Drive will continue to function if half full or less. In fact this was an early "speed secret". Draining off half the oil gives you the equivalent of a high stall speed torque converter for whippier acceleration. I don't recommend this but never heard of it doing any harm. The same TDH fluid can be used in the semi auto M6 transmission. It too will take 10W motor oil. There is a pipe plug on the right side of the trans for the fill level and a drain plug on the bottom like any typical manual trans. The oil is supposed to be changed annually or every 10000 miles. Trans can be accessed from under the car or by another removable access plate on the right side of the driveshaft tunnel. For the Dodge manual trans 90 gear oil (summer) or 80 (winter). Some models use 10W motor oil, the service data book I have is not clear what the difference is or what to use with a manual trans/fluid drive combination. You may need to find a 1952 owner's manual or repair manual for specifics.

I don't know the exact amount but it is not critical. As c49er pointed out, the fill hole accessed thru the floor boards, is positioned so that when you fill it up, it will have the correct air space for proper functioning. As the Fluid Drive is a sealed unit, there must be some air space to allow for heat expansion. The Fluid Drive will continue to work when half full. In fact this was an early "speed secret". By draining off half the oil you had the equivalent of a high stall speed torque converter which improved acceleration at the expense of gas mileage. The literature I have seen from Chrysler does not recommend ever changing the Fluid Drive oil, just topping it up annually. Maybe this is why they never mention how much oil it takes. A lot of us use TDH tractor oil, ISO 22 or ISO 32 grade. TDH stands for Transmission, Differential and Hydraulic oil. It is supposed to be good for the transmission as well as the Fluid Drive.

There are firms that specialize in oils for antique cars. Here is one, there are others if you do a web search. I know nothing about this company or their products, it turned up in a quick search so I thought I would post it as an example. Classic Car Motor Oil

I did a quick search for Timken worm drive axles but didn't turn up much information. I did find some ads in 1918 and 1919 newspapers in which truck manufacturers mentioned their Timken worm drive axles. One said they had been making the same model truck for 8 years. A Wikipedia article on David Brown the English firm, mentioned a joint venture with Timken for making worm drive axles, starting in 1913. So, worm drive trucks had been using Timken axles for some time. The high speed auto worm drive was a new development taken up by Stutz. They also took up the Timken Hydrostatic brakes, which proved troublesome. They dropped the brakes in favor of Lockheed brakes after a year or so. They also were the first to use safety glass, of a type with fine wires embedded in the glass. This was replaced by the modern type of laminated glass as soon as it became available. All this indicates Stutz was open to innovations from outside the firm and was an early adopter of promising technology. As to whether they stole the worm drive idea from Booth, well, where did he get it? Did he claim to have invented the high speed worm drive or did he get the idea from Timken or some other drive gear specialist or manufacturer?

My understanding was that the overall design of the Safety Stutz was inspired by the new Timken worm drive axle. Worm drive had been used on heavy trucks, and was to be used on them for years to come. The drawback for car use was that they had too much friction for high speed use. Timken developed a new form of worm drive gear that overcame this problem. It could be used in a high powered, high speed car without excessive friction. The new rear axle allowed the driveshaft to be several inches lower. This in turn allowed the frame and body to sit lower. A double drop frame with kickups for the front and rear axle was the obvious result. All this was a fairly obvious development that flowed from the new worm drive axle. Other innovations like the hydraulic brakes and safety glass also came from outside the company. Stutz was the first to use them because they were open to new ideas and could afford to use them where cheaper cars could not. Also, Stutz being a small firm was less likely to reject outside ideas on a "not invented here" basis. They must have known that a small firm must be open to new ideas from outside if they are to have a competitive advantage vis a vis the majors. They simply don't have the resources in house to compete with General Motors and other giant companies.

By the way... for anyone who wants access to books but can't afford to buy them, they are often available from your local public library on an Interlibrary Loan. It may take a few weeks to get them but you might be surprised what they can get for you.

So, Moscovics won the case then lost on appeal. My apologies for the error. I did say my memory was not perfectly reliable. As Stutz bought their worm drive axles from Timken it would seem Booth should have sued Timken. What I read was that the new low friction worm drive was a Timken invention which Stutz bought ready made. Stutz did not invent or manufacture them it was Timken who violated the Booth patents if anybody did. Some people like to throw around the word "stealing". Yet the courts established that no patents were infringed. If the second guy who made a dropped frame, X member frame, etc was "stealing" then all cars are the same. I suppose next you will be blaming Chev for "stealing" the idea of a V8 from Ford, or Ford for "stealing" the idea of round wheels from Ben Hur's chariot.

I thought Charles "Pop" Greuter was an engine man, responsible for the OHC Safety Stutz straight eight. I have a vague impression he designed the engine on his own initiative and it was later adopted by Stutz. The Safety Stutz was developed in a hurry after Moscovics came on board and vetoed the "Da Vinci" prototype. This resembled the Safety Stutz in some features but was a smaller car with a smaller engine. The designer of the Da Vinci later sued Stutz, claiming their car was based on his design. The case went to court, Moscovics claimed the Stutz design was his, and that any resemblance was coincidental. For example the running boards acted as reinforcements for the chassis frame, a Da Vinci feature, but Moscovics proved Marmon had the same thing and that he picked up the idea when he worked for Marmon. The underslung worm drive came from a transmission manufacturer, and the OHC engine came from Greuter. In other words the features they had in common, Moscovics arrived at independently. He claimed he designed the Safety Stutz and had never seen the Da Vinci plans, that he ordered them returned to the designer without looking at them. Stutz won the case although the court seemed suspicious of the idea that the president of a car company was competent to design a car! This is my recollection from some books and magazine articles on Stutz that I read 30 or 40 years ago so I can't swear to any of it.

Early taxicabs and trucks had open driver's compartments too. There were 2 reasons for this. One was, there were no heaters or defrosters or even windshield wipers on the earliest cars, so an open driver's compartment was necessary for visibility in bad weather. Plus, it was considered unhealthy to go from a closed cab, out into the open air, and back again. This was considered a certain way to catch a cold or the flu, if the driver hopped in and out a dozen times a day, which he would do in a delivery truck or taxi. Much healthier to have the driver's compartment in the open air, and dress up real warm in a cap and overcoat and lined leather gauntlets. The earliest cars were open touring type, adding a closed passenger compartment was rather swanky and impractical for the rough roads of the time, but OK in town where streets were paved and speeds slow. Eventually better bodies, heaters, defrosters, etc made this design obsolete. But London taxicabs kept the open driver's compartment into the fifties. ----------------- notice the specimens above, from the twenties, have no windshield wipers but the windshield opens out for visibility in snow or rain. No side windows either. The driver was working and had to see all around. Also notice the chauffeur's uniform of heavy wool buttoned up to the neck with the military style peaked cap. And this was what they wore on a sunny day. Necessary for protection from the wind and weather while driving. In bad weather a raincoat or overcoat would be added, possibly even a fur coat in winter.

They used a residual pressure valve to keep a slight pressure on the seals and prevent fluid seeping out. About 1975 they changed the design of the wheel cylinder cups to incorporate a spring for this purpose. After that they did not need the valve.

I have a 49 Chrysler Windsor with cloth upholstery and it is shot. Is there a good source of suitable material? The original was a blue striped cloth. I don't have to have an exact match, something suitable to the era and style of the car would be fine. Any idea where to get such material, and what it costs?

Not sure what you mean. There must be lots of cars left with Continental motors but they seldom are advertised as such. Graham, Kaiser and Frazer used Continental sixes but they tried to pretend they were of their own design and manufacture. In the case of Kaiser and Frazer this was not far wrong as they took over a war surplus Continental factory and made their own motors with Continental's permission. In the last couple of years I have seen fifties and sixties Jeeps in wrecking yards, that had Continental motors. I think Jeep was the last to use them, up to 1961. Years ago I saw a Continental advertisement listing the makes of cars and trucks that used their motors. There must have been over 100 of them. I doubt this type of ad was repeated, as I said, most buyers of their motors wanted to keep it dark, at least in the case of cars.

Here is a slightly newer, 1951 DeSoto Suburban. The same body was used for Dodge, DeSoto, Chrysler and Imperial. This is the factory limo and 8 pass body used up to 1954. 1951 DeSoto Suburban cars - long term report / car review with trailer towing

Chrysler made a mass produced limousine type body in the forties and up to 1954. They were available in Dodge, DeSoto, Chrysler and Imperial 8 pass sedans and limos. But they all had 4 doors. Did you ever notice the Cunningham family car in Happy Days? That is what one looks like, a DeSoto Suburban with roof rack. After 54 any limos were custom built. Ghia in Italy built a few for Chrysler every year. These were real expensive "carriage trade" limos. There were also American made conversions like the Stageways above for airport limo and light bus work.

That may be the best way to do it. Order the king pin kits, take the spindle supports off, clean off the dirt and grease, and take them to an auto machine shop to have them taken apart and new pins and bushings installed.