oldbuicks55

Here is the 34. Once I get it back running, I will try to post some photos in the me and my Buick section.

Hi, this is my car, planned to post it on here but didnt get around to it yet. Long time member here but infrequent poster. Definitely a wordy ad but that is actually the edited down version! I bought the car when I was single, enjoyed it for years, but now have kids and five vehicles 1955 and older. One of the cars needs to go as I have run out of space and time and have a 1934 Buick currently in pieces and need room to work. As mentioned in the ad, I have driven this car over 3,000 miles but most of that was pre-2019. I put a lot of time, energy and money into it after I bought it in 2006, but the last five years I have averaged about 50 miles a year and deferred too much maintenance and it deserves better. It runs pretty well but does need some attention, most of which could probably be addressed by a competent mechanic in a weekend or two. I believe the wiring harness was replaced at some point by the prior owner as it doesnt look 83 years old. The voltage regulator is definitely newer. I can provide a lot more photos and info if anyone is interested. Andrew_Latvia, I replied to your e-mail via Craigslist but let me know if you didnt receive it.

Links to old water jacket threads that may (or may not) help: http://forums.aaca.org/topic/151096-water-jacket-info-from-50-jetbackplease/#comment-717260 and http://forums.aaca.org/topic/150896-233-water-jacket/#comment-717704

I am in the process of replacing my water jacket on a 34 Buick Series 60 as I also had the telltale water stain trail on the engine block. Mine is a little bit different engine, but I would guess the replacement process is similar. It is my understanding this is a common problem on 34-35 Buicks. On mine there were about 36 bolts most of which were blocked by the manifolds. I saw no other way to get to the jacket other than to remove the manifolds, carburetor, air cleaner etc. Fortunately, on mine I was able to remove most of this bolted together in one piece so it wasnt too bad. My old water jacket was a rusty mess with numerous old repairs. I broke five bolts trying to get it out and had to retap the holes. Upon getting the old jacket out and opening the chamber I was greeted with a huge pile of crud, mostly around the front and rear cylinders. It was a pain to clean out around the cylinders but definitely needed to be done. I am still working on cleaning out other parts of the cooling system. I was fortunate that I was able to purchase a new jacket cover from Bob's. It was the last one they had for a series 60 engine--I dont know what they have for a Series 40. There are some old threads on the forum about work arounds if you cant find a replacement jacket. It involves fabricating a metal sheet to serve as a cover for the chamber on the inside of your old leaky jacket. I think Series 40 also had some kind of baffle with the jacket so you will have to take that into consideration. I am still in the process of putting everything back together but the new cover seems to fit well although the cork gasket I bought with it had to have some adjustments made. We shall see how everything works once I am done. Good luck with your jacket!

Grant, Thanks for the info! Even though it is 16 years later, I still have the 41 Buick. While I fixed the brake problem long ago, there are always new issues that pop up so it is good to have contacts. There seem to be more 1941 owners on the forum now then there were 16 years ago, so that is a good thing. While I check the forum once or twice a month, I dont post much. This looks to be my 14th post in sixteen years! Lars

I have no real knowledge of the seller on ebay or the car itself, but I am pretty sure it was for sale in the July print edition of Hemmings for $36,500. How many green 1940 Packard 180 limos could there be? A quick google search shows two dealers with this car (both marked sold) with lots of pictures and details. The ebay auction could be an attempt at a quick flip (quite a gamble with a pre-war car) or a scam. Not saying it is either but an interested buyer should probably ask a lot of questions...

Someone requested photos of my cabinet in my 90L. I have no doubt it is not exactly as it came from the factory as some of the hardware is a little too crude. Still I have seen enough similar examples that I think the cabinet was an option and not just some crafty restorer's substitute for missing jump seats. But I could be wrong! As a side note, I don't think the wood around the divider window crank is probably stock. Also, for those who are curious that is a clock above the crank.

As the owner of a 1938 Limited 90L, I would agree with the comments so far. All the pre-war Limiteds are great cars and classics and they should be worth a lot more, but the market indicates otherwise. I hope the sellers get their price, but realistically I think the one for sale probably needs to drop at least $10K or more to move any time soon. From what I have seen, buyers seem to be particularly picky when everything isn’t perfect on these. I do really love my 38 and it is definitely a car I plan to keep for a lifetime. I have had it about 12 years now and enjoy driving it. We even used it for my wedding and several friends' weddings as well. An odd thing is that if I take it some place where it is mostly “car guys”, like a local cars and coffee or small car show, it doesn’t really get a second look. I think it is just seen as a big old four door sedan. However, when I go someplace where it is mostly non-car people or a show that has a lot of the general public attending, they seem to go nuts over it. Mine has the glass divider and leather seats in front but oddly enough no jumps seats. It has a built in bar/storage cabinet in the back of the front seat, which is substantially different than the one installed in the Limited for sale in this thread. I haven’t seen the option that mine has in any Buick literature but I have seen enough 38 Limiteds (at least three others) similarly equipped with the built in storage compartment and no jump seats that it would seem to have at least been an option. Oh and as someone mentioned, the front seat is fixed and probably designed for someone about 5’10” or less. But if you are taller, don’t let that scare you too much. I am about 6”2” and while a couple more inches of leg room would be nice, I have driven the car close to 2,000 miles and for me, it has just been something I have gotten used to. My brother in law is 6’5” and he has driven the car several times, without significant complaint.

Matt Harwood--Your 1941 Century blog was a great help to me when I was getting my own 1941 Super back on the road about 12 years ago. So a belated thanks for that. My 1938 Limited was a show car back in the early 80's when it was restored. I think it won best of show at the 1983 BCA meet long before my ownership. It still looks nice but the restoration shows its age as it has put on some miles since then and the lacquer has failed in spots . I have had it for ten years now and while I prefer to keep it stock when possible, my main goal here is to make sure it stops when I want it to. The brake system is clearly not stock, so I am going to try and find the best solution I can. I think you are on to something about not going back to the stock route. Dave--looks like we live close by each other, I am sure I have seen your 1940 Buick at the All GM show at Montgomery College. Been a while since I have shown a car there. MCHinson--Thanks so much for the pictures. That helps solves a lot of the mystery. I think the Limited must be a little different given where the floor access hole is from the top but the stock cylinder must still connect to the transmission somehow, which explains the need for the rubber hose. The non-stock brake system on my car is routed completely different as my master cylinder was attached to the frame with a bracket, so they also went with a metal line instead of a hose. I must be missing more pieces as I don't see anyway to make the stock master cylinder would work without some kind of bracket that attaches to the transmission. Even with a bracket I don't see how it would reach my brake pedal and be under the floor access hole. My brake line junction box is also quite different. So it looks like my best option right now is to either sleeve the cylinder I have on hand since I know that works with my configuration or to find another cylinder that is compatible per Matt's suggestion. I will start another thread to see if anybody knows the original application for a Wagner Lockheed FD-4862 cylinder. It is the same size as the stock Delco cylinder, but the mirror opposite. I googled it but found no info about it. Thank you again to everybody for your input! Lars

Thanks for the reply. The rubber hose is definitely correct as that is what the shop manual refers to (and also what Bob's sells as being correct). Unfortunately, the shop manual doesn't show enough detail to indicate how the rubber hose connects to the metal brake lines. That is currently the missing piece of the puzzle for me. The car was restored back in the early 80's, so they probably went with whatever master cylinder they could find that was close in size, but used a metal line instead of the stock rubber hose (and whatever part I am missing). The non-stock master cylinder failed recently and is pretty scored on the inside so it needs to be replaced. I ordered the replacement from Bob's as well as the hose. I might need to change the title of this thread to 1936-1938 Buick Series 60-80-90 to get more of a response as I know there aren't too many 38 Limiteds out there. My 1941 Buick has the metal line coming from the master cylinder, so that is no help.

I have a question about what the rubber master cylinder hose connects to for a 1938 Buick Limited. The hose has a male end and a female end. The male end obviously connects to the master cylinder but I am not sure what the female end connects to. The non-stock cylinder I pulled off the car connected to a metal line. which connected to a junction box with the brake switch. The metal line has two male ends, unlike the rubber hose. So the junction box I need to connect to has a female input so the hose wont connect to it. I am sure I can probably find some type of male/male adaptor to make it work, but I am wondering how this connection was made originally and if anyone sells the parts. The rubber hose was used from 1936 to 1938 on the Series 60 and up models, so I am hoping somebody might have some idea what I am talking about. Bob's Automobilia seemed confused when I asked them, so I might be asking the question in the wrong way. I am also kind of curious as to why a rubber hose was needed in the first place. Whoever restored my car obviously didn't think it was necessary. Unfortunately, the metal line wont work with the new stock cylinder that I have on hand. Thanks for any help anyone can provide.

I replaced my temperature gauge last year on my 1941 Super, so I went through the process of removing the gauge cluster. There were four bolts that held the machined metal dash plate which holds the gauges. It required a bit of an awkward effort to get those loose but it wasnt too bad. This allowed the dash plate (with the three gauges) to come loose and move a few inches toward the steering wheel. In order to give the dash cluster enough play to move forward, I had to first unhook the speedometer cable from the bracket on the steering column in the engine compartment. Once the four nuts are removed from the dash plate it will come out about two inches or so which gives just enough room to remove the nuts holding the gauges in place. Although I didnt remove it, I think there were three nuts holding the speedometer onto the machined plate. When moving the gauge cluster, I used some towels to pad it to avoid scratching the dash, steering coulmn etc. There might be a better way, but that is how I did it. Getting everything back together was a little more challenging as it is easy to drop the nuts and tougher to find them. I have some pictures I took underneath the dash I could send you--I have no idea of how to post them.

My 1938 90L has the battery in the engine compartment. It is on the right (passenger) side running parallel to the engine. It is the long narrow battery style. I think the Limiteds tend not to be as standardized compared to the rest of the models, so all kinds of variations can be found. For example, mine has 1937 style rear shocks. I don't know much about McLauglins so not sure of the difference and how they varied from the regular Buick line. I can send you some pics if you would like. Lars

Thank you for your offer--I am slowly figuring out that there are not too many 41 Buick owners who post here. I think I figured how to run the line this weekend based on some pictures I found on the internet. If I didnt route the line 100% correct, I think it must be pretty close. My new problem is that in the bleeding process I have found that some of the connections are leaking slightly--so I need to try some different things to get better seals. Always something it seems...

I have perused Matt Harwood's site--he has two pictures that are real close to what I am hoping to find (assuming the Century routing is the same as the Super). I also don't know if his car had the original lines at the time of the photos. I am hoping for something that shows the piping a little better regarding how it goes by the clutch pedal.