nashtwin8

Thanks for the helpful comments everyone. Right now, I'm just going to mount some good used tires on these rims so I can trailer the car to a new storage garage. It's going to be a while yet before I can begin restoration, and I'll have to do things "right" then. Some of the very old tires presently on the car have gone flat, and cracked and broke in the process. Wish me luck! Jerry K

Thanks for all the responses! Sorry to be so slow, but things have been rather busy for us of late. I thought I'd post a few pictures of one of the wheels in question, in case it helps narrow the suggestions down any more. These take a 7.00 x 17 tire. Is there any need for flaps with these wheels? They appear to have smooth, seamless rims, so from what I've been told, I don't think so. I'm here to ask the experts though! Thanks again to one and all! Jerry K

Hi Perry, For a start, it depends on what model your Nash is. Nash was building and selling three completely different model series in 1929, and they are all quite different in terms of size and dimensions. I'm not sure where to get the specs you're looking for, but I am curious as to which model your car is. In general, a Nash body of that time has a lot more wood in it than a Ford body, and would have been a considerably tighter, quieter car when new, so probably a lot more comfortable as well. Even the lowest priced Nash was a lot higher priced than a Ford, so would have had much nicer interior appointments, upholstery and trim. I'd suggest you join the Nash Car Club of America (if you aren't already a member) to get yourself into the "Nash network" for info and parts. They have a ton of stuff on their website, but much of it is accessible only by members. Take care, Jerry K

I was told long ago that 1930s style wire wheels are not strong enough to use on a pneumatically operated tire changing machine - that the machine is too powerful, and will break the spokes and ruin the wheel. Is that really true? How about 1930s steel artillery wheels? Can those be used on a tire changing machine in any tire shop, or do I need to break out the tire irons and do that job by hand? Probably doesn't matter, but these wheels are on my '34 Nash. Thanks in advance for any helpful tips and advice. Jerry K Seattle

I think there was another factor not yet mentioned. Metallurgy was advancing rapidly in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Steel disc wheels may have been prohibitively expensive to make in 1900 (if they could have been made practical under the conditions then at all). Given the high ground clearances required by the rutted roads found almost everywhere, they also would probably have been far heavier than comparatively light wood wheels. By 1932 or so, all these factors were changing, including the steel alloys available, and the cost of producing things made of various materials. You could also think of things like product packaging and containers. Up until 1930 or so, lots and lots of ordinary products came in sturdy wooden boxes. Some things also came in steel boxes. By 1940, cardboard-like materials had taken the place of both wood and steel packaging for a great many products. Industrial things were changing rapidly in the 1930s, and wood was being used less and less in cars. Wood-framed bodies were falling from favor by the mid-1930s, and wood was not even used for upholstery tack strips in cars much by 1940, a dramatic change from 1930, when many cars had wood-framed bodies, and virtually all cars had some wood in them somewhere. I think those thick-, short-spoked wood wheels that closed out the age of wood wheels look great on some cars of the 1932-1934 era, generally, and find it interesting that steel artillery wheels, made to look practically identical to the wood variety, were briefly popular from about 1934-1937, although during that time the look did move away from that of the wood variety to a smoother, more "streamlined" spoke. I learned quite a bit from this thread. For instance, I never knew that Packard, or any other car, was still offering wood as late as 1936, nor that super-balloon tires were ever available. Thanks to all you guys for sharing your knowledge!

I like your beautiful Continental Barry, and I am very intrigued by the whole story of the Continental automobile. I have had a chance to see a couple of Beacons and a fairly complete Ace sedan in need of complete restoration, but I don't think I have ever seen a Flyer. From what you say, your Flyer sounds like a pretty good car. I hope you are still enjoying it. Take care, Jerry K

Alan, As noted above, Nash built several straight 8s in the 1930s. The first was the largest, and used overhead valves and twin ignition. The 1930 490, 1931 890 and 1932 990 used a 298 cu. in. which was enlarged to 322 cu. in. and used in the 1932 (second series) 1090, 1933 1190 and 1934 1290. In 1931 two more eights were introduced. The smaller one was a flathead, which was built only through 1933. The intermediate used overhead valves and twin ignition, and was the one described above, built from 1931 thru 1942. The 1942 models were the only OHV Nash eights without twin ignition. The flathead eights did not use twin ignition. Take care, Jerry K

Doug, In case you are still wondering, I think what you have is a tail light for a '29-'31 Nash, from the larger model series. For example it looks just like the one on my '31 890. I'm not sure whether it would also fit the 880 or not. Take care, Jerry K

While the emblem itself is the same, the chrome housing on this one marks it as being for a '49-'51 full-size Nash, but not a Rambler.

Adding an oil filter means your engine will require more oil to fill the crankcase. An extra quart was the standard for ordinary oil filters. DO NOT add a mark to your dipstick!!! You want the engine oil level to stay the same. However, some of the oil will go to filling up the filter at all times - additional space that wasn't part of the oil system before adding the filter. That's why you need to use more oil. Do NOT overfill your crankcase! You may end up with air creating foam in the oil, greatly reducing the lubricating capacity of the oil, and probably causing serious damage to your engine. Some old service advice suggested sometimes changing the oil without changing the filter, in which case you still used the original amount of oil. It's generally a good idea to always change the filter though, to get the filtered dirt and crud out of your engine. Keeping the old filter means also keeping a quart of dirty old oil. Why mix that in with your new clean oil? Take care, Jerry K

Hi Everyone, I have a similar question - my father has this Graham Supercharger, but we are not sure what it fits. From the above, I gather that this is a later-model unit. Would this script have been used to the end of Graham production? Any further advice would be appreciate. Is there much demand for a unit like this? Would it be worth our while to restore it before trying to sell it, or would most restorers rather buy it as is? Also, what is the object that looks like an oil pressure sender? Thanks for your help, Jerry K Seattle

Koby, you remind me of myself when I was your age, in the mid-1970s. Before I got a driver's license at age 16, and a job, I would come home from school and read Hemmings Motor News, Old Cars Weekly, or any of several car club magazines my dad and/or I got in the mail. You're lucky that today you can use the internet to communicate with others who share your interests. Back then we were not so connected, and it was seldom I found anyone anywhere near my age who understood what I was so fascinated with. I applaud your desire to keep a car original, as that's what I like best, too. As you said, a lot of skill and creativity goes into some modified cars, it just doesn't happen to be my thing. I agree with the idea that a straightforward car would be a good one to start with. While I share your appreciation of Cadillacs, they are complicated machines. Leaky vacuum lines can be a challenge to replace, and the Automatic Climate Control systems used to challenge even trained professionals when they were current. Also, in today's world, they use a lot of fuel, which can get expensive very quickly. If cars of the '60s appeal to you, you might take a look at something like a Chevy II or something similar that could deliver some decent gas mileage, and be relatively simple to repair and maintain. I had a '65 Buick Skylark that I really enjoyed. I also like Ramblers. If you are willing to drive something a bit more unusual, you will probably find they are available at lower prices than the more popular Fords and Chevys. How about something like a Studebaker Lark? Keep on going to those car shows, and you'll probably find that certain types of cars hold a special appeal for you. Maybe that's one way you could start narrowing your choices. Best wishes, Jerry K

Sorry no one has answered your inquiry until now. The Nash Car Club of America is an active club of more than 1,300 members worldwide. They have a nice little magazine, and an active website with ads, a huge library, and a whole lot more. You can take a look at www.nashcarclub.org As for parts, well, Nash parts are not as plentiful as Buick parts, nor are there many vendors specializing in Nash parts. Still, for '50s era cars in particular, parts are out there, and with a little persistence you can usually track them down. The Nash Car Club is the network, so joining the club is the best thing you can do if you own a Nash. Best wishes, Jerry K Nash Car Club of America member

No, that is not correct. A look at the wheelbase specs alone will show you that Nash had many different chassis during the years you ask about. 1937-1939 chassis were pretty much the same, except for a major redesign of the ohv 6 & 8 cylinder heads, intake & exhaust systems for '38, and '40 made a switch to independent front suspension across the board. Here's a quick rundown to help you sort it all out. 1932 1st Series Series 990 - 124 & 133" wheelbases, 298.6 cu in OHV twin ignition straight 8 Series 980 - 121" wheelbase, 240 cu in OHV twin ignition straight 8 Series 970 - 116.25" wheelbase, 227.2 cu in flathead straight 8 Series 960 - 114.25" wheelbase, 201.3 cu in flathead 6 1932 2nd Series Series 1090 - 133 & 142" wheelbases, 322 cu in OHV twin ignition straight 8 with worm drive rear end Series 1080 - 128" wheelbase, 260.8 cu in OHV twin ignition straight 8 with worm drive rear end Series 1070 - 121" wheelbase, 247.4 cu in flathead straight 8 Series 1060 - 116" wheelbase, 201.3 cu in flathead 6 1933 Series 1190 - 133 & 142" wheelbases, 322 cu in OHV twin ignition straight 8 with worm drive rear end Series 1180 - 128" wheelbase, 260.8 cu in OHV twin ignition straight 8 with worm drive rear end Series 1170 - 121" wheelbase, 247.4 cu in flathead straight 8 Series 1130 - 116" wheelbase, 247.4 cu in flathead straight 8 Series 1120 - 116" wheelbase, 217.8 cu in flathead 6 1934 - all except LaFayette available with independent front suspension, optional (Baker AxleFlex articulated beam axle) - (1934 only) Series 1290 - 133 & 142" wheelbases, 322 cu in OHV twin ignition straight 8 with worm drive rear end Series 1280 - 121" wheelbase, 260.8 cu in OHV twin ignition straight 8 Series 1220 - 116" wheelbase, 234.8 cu in OHV twin igintion 6 LaFayette Series 110 - 110" wheelbase, 217.8 cu in flathead 6 1935 Series 3580 - 125" wheelbase, 260.8 cu in OHV twin ignition straight 8 Series 3520 - 120" wheelbase, 234.8 cu in OHV twin igintion 6 Series 3540 - 117" wheelbase, 234.8 cu in flathead 6 LaFayette Series 3510 - 113" wheelbase, 217.8 cu in flathead 6 1936 Series 3680 - 125" wheelbase, 260.8 cu in OHV twin ignition straight 8 Series 3620 - 125" wheelbase, 234.8 cu in OHV twin igintion 6 Series 3640, 3640A - 117" wheelbase, 234.8 cu in flathead 6 LaFayette Series3610, 3610A - 113" wheelbase, 217.8 cu in flathead 6 1937 Series 3780 - 125" wheelbase, 260.8 cu in OHV twin ignition straight 8 Series 3720 - 121" wheelbase, 234.8 cu in OHV twin igintion 6 Series 3710 - 117" wheelbase, 234.8 cu in flathead 6 1938 Series 3880 - 125" wheelbase, 260.8 cu in OHV twin ignition straight 8 Series 3820 - 121" wheelbase, 234.8 cu in OHV twin igintion 6 Series 3810 - 117" wheelbase, 234.8 cu in flathead 6 1939 Series 3980 - 125" wheelbase, 260.8 cu in OHV twin ignition straight 8 Series 3920 - 121" wheelbase, 234.8 cu in OHV twin igintion 6 Series 3910 - 117" wheelbase, 234.8 cu in flathead 6 1940 - with independent front suspension Series 4080 - 125" wheelbase, 260.8 cu in OHV twin ignition straight 8 Series 4020 - 121" wheelbase, 234.8 cu in OHV twin igintion 6 Series 4010 - 117" wheelbase, 234.8 cu in flathead 6 Like some of the other independent automakers, Nash was rather busy juggling engines and wheelbases, trying to come up with the combinations that would attract the most sales. As the Great Depression wore on, they were forced to cut back on the combinations, and finally hit on a combination that seemed to work well for a few years. Take care, Jerry K

I don't know what kind of car this is, but I don't think it's a Buick. If you look closely at the photo of the '26 Buick posted, it does not have those hard, angular corners on the radiator. Buick had a much more softly curved radiator/hood design at that time, that eventually got them in trouble with Packard for looking a bit too Packard-like. I'm guessing this is a much less common car than a Buick.