Packard enthus.

MY COMMENTS ABOUT TRAILER TIRES, AND PEOPLE CALLING MY POSTS 'DRIVEL". From time to time we see childish insults in here. My initals are PFH, and I am fairly well-known in the old car hobby. I got lucky and have one HELL of a big old classic car - apparently, that is offensive to some guys who werent as lucky as I am. I hope I have a long-established reputation as one who desires to HELP fellow old car hobbyists get CORRECT info., hopefully to keep them active in the hobby. All too often we have people get nasty when they see comments that are too technical for them to grasp, typically when they say something I do NOT think has served the old car hobby well. I am not pleased at personal attacks. I dont think most old car buffs want to see that. I dont think that is a particularly sportsmanlike way to respond to a post. Secondly, that kind of mean-spirited childish attack SHOULD make us ALL wonder about the competence of the person who felt a desire to be nasty. For TWO very good reasons. First, a good general reason is childish insults place discredit on all of us, including the sponsor of this forum Secondly, childish insults make us wonder how competent the indivdual is, making the insult. I am terriblly sorry for the "insulter" that he dosnt like me. We dont come in here to run personality contests - we come in here, hopefully, to help others and see what we can learn. The reason I think we should all take a good deep breath, and wonder about the competence of this fellow "calling my post drivel"..IS I DID NOT MAKE ANY POSTS IN THIS THREAD. The is some guy with SIMILIAR initials who is apparently a NEW guy to our forum. I hope he and other people seriously interested in helping and learning something about old car issues, isnt put off by this one childish insulter. Now, as long as I am ACCUSED of making a "post" this guy calls "drive", let me put MY "two cents" in about my own trailer tire experience (see next post - I am going to run out to my trailer and take some notes on my tires. Be right back).

by the mid 1920's radiator technology, and SAE technical standards had taken the auto industry to the point that a properly set up production car, especially those designed for the wealthy to be used at high speeds, WILL NOT OVER-HEAT. PERIOD. (notice I didn't mention Ford products - did anyone see a Ford out in the desert in the summer, up to, oh, say 1950, that did NOT sport a "Desert Water" bag dangling from the front bumper...? You say you had your radiator "re-cored". How do you know the "new" radiator is of sufficient capacity ? A REALLY competent radiator shop would do a "flow" check, and compare it with the charts on your car, to see if you are getting the cooling water you need.

I cant make any intelligent comment on this issue, since I am pretty ignorant about the pre-war "Junior" series cars. Your photographs are great. I'd sure like to see a photograph of the LEFT side of the two transmissions you are talking about, so I could understand all this better better. Do I understand you to be saying that the pre-war TOP/STICK transmissions had "bosses" already machined in the SIDE of the transmission so that they were ready for the side-levers of a column-shift installation ?

someone explain to me what I am missing. The late pre-war ('39 and on) and post war Packards had column shift transmissions. The gear-changhing levers came in from the SIDE of the transmission. The so called "top loader" or "stick" shift earlier Packard transmissions, (meaning the entire transmission ) from the "junior" Packard line MIGHT bolt to the later car bell housing - I dont know. Havnt a clue. Is that what you are talking about ? Putting an entire transmission from an earlier Packard that originally had a "stick" shift, into a '47 Clipper ? But, just mechanism consisting of the top-plate, gear shift lever, etc, from the "top shifter" transmission fit into a transmission designed for a column shift ? Huh ? C'mon..guys ! What is that pretty picture of. Sure likes like a column shift transmission to me. If it is, someone mind telling me how you could install the gear-shift lever and connecting plate, from a "top shift" transmission, into the transmission pictured.. ? ? ?

for what make, model, and year car ? If you are referring to Packards, we need to know if you are referring to the "big" Packards, i.e. "Senior Division", or the "small-engined" Packards - the so called "Junior" division. The top-shfting transmission covers were all the same from late 1931 production to the end of Senior production in July 1939, when the facilities for the production of "big" Packards were destroyed. The year 1939 is a special case, the only "Senior" division cars produced for that year were the Twelves. Most of 1939 model year Twelve production has "column" shifters - using the same basic transmission from 1932-1939 production, but the case was modified so that the shifting levers come in from the side, rather than the top. While Packard produced a model CALLED the "Super Eight" in 1939, its only connection to the old "Senior" division was the use of what was, for a time, the smallest motor available - commonly known as a "Standard Eight" motor of 320 cu in - but everything else about the car, including chassis, suspension, sheet metal, transmission, etc, was all from the lighter-weight Packard parts bin. So a transmission top case cover from a 1939 Super Eight would be different than earlier production. Now, the shifting stalks themselves change with the introduction of 1935 models, because the seating position is further back from the transmission - the covers themselves, are the same. I do not know about the so called "small" Packard transmission covers, meaning the "120" and "110" series. To my knowledge virtually NO parts from the "Junior Division" cars will fit a "Senior" division Packard. They might as well be different make cars, both in quality and performance. Perhaps someone more familiar with the "Junior" Packards can help you narrow down your search, if indeed you have a "Junior" Packard.

I dont fear vapor lock. I dont get vapor lock. The reason I dont get vapor lock, is because I have TWO electric fuel pumps, in parallel, both mounted LOW, so that my fuel lines are under pressure pretty much thru-out the length of the car. ( Packard Twelves are BIG engines that CAN, when "pushed" under extreme conditions (as in when going up a long steep grade at obscene speeds), suck more gas than one ordinary electric fuel pump can deliver ). You are WRONG WRONG WRONG about fuel formulation per Reid Vapor pressure. It IS much higher these days, and that is why MANY cars with carbuerators fed by engine driven vacuum style fuel pumps DO vapor lock. I have no answer why SOME cars with engine-driven diaphragm fuel pumps do not vapor lock even with today's fuels. The monster (just a hair under 800 cu. in) V-12 in my American La France did not vapor lock even coming up the Needles Grade in August ( I-40 between Needles and Barstow). I drove it to New York and back one summer, and never even turned on the electric fuel pump I installed because I thought I might need it. Other car buff friends of mine DO have vapor lock problems, and I KNOW there is nothing wrong with their cars.

BASICS OF VAPOR LOCK I know..I know...why bother - we go thru this nonsence on about 5 month cycles in here - people who have "belief systems", and lack a basic education in the physical sciences, dont want to hear technical facts but DO want to sound important, keep giving other car enthusiasts nonsensical info. I am opposed to the above practice - we need to HELP our fellow car buffs with LEGIT. info. to keep them in the hobby. Over the years, the "vapor pressure" of gasoline has risen. For the simple reason is, the eaiser it is to get the liquid gasoline into a vapor, the better the car runs. The introduction of high pressure fuel delivery systems ( most fuel injected cars now have high pressure fuel pumps mounted in the gas tank ) has enabled the industry to enjoy a MUCH higher Ried vapor pressure than would have been possible in the old days. Gasoline vapor pressure was so low in the early days, that, if you wanted to get a car running on a cold morning, you either heated it by towing it inside, or had a neat gadget that some luxury cars had, called a "Fuelizer", which was nothing more than an additional spark plug in the intake manifold, to help TRY and get the burning process going. As fuel vapor pressures have risen, vehicles with the old style diaphragm "suction" type pumps are experiencing more and more "boiling off" of gasoline. Vapor lock, or the "boiling off" of gasoline can be eliminated by putting the gasoline under pressure. Very simple solution - mount an electric fuel pump as close to the gas tank as possible, and as low as possible. If the gasoline is under pressure, it cant vapor lock. Physical impossibility. Yes, I know about the cow magnets, prayers to Buddah, and rubbing one's belly three times in the right direction. Yes, we all got our cars with ordinary diaphragm/suction type fuel pumps going, for many years. But that was then. Gasoline has changed. On a hot day, your car's structure gets warm. Your gasoline line runs all the way from the gas tank to your engine-driven fuel pump. It is under SUCTION until it gets into your engine-driven diaphram fuel pump. THAT is where it is going to boil. Basic physical laws - folks, you reduce the ambient pressure, and you increase the chances of the liquid becoming a vapor. Our diaphram type fuel pumps cannot pump a vapor. So - bottom line, no matter how well you "restore" your vehicle, including its old style fuel pump, you cant get 1950's gasoline ! Install an electric fuel pump PROPERLY, and say good bye to vapor lock.

wasnt there some guy who explained why hi speed trains (speeds of over 50 mph) were a physical impossibility due to the medical risks of the air being sucked out of one's lungs at those extreme speeds... ?

Good post - Restorer 32...! Couldnt have said it better !

IF your question is a general one as to "judging" we cant help you in this "thread". HOW the "sport" of "Judging" is practiced depends on the typical car show and/or objectives of the event sponsors. IF your question is directed specifically towards the Classic Car Club Of America's judging rules, let me give you my personal opinion - please note I have NOT been active in CCCA management for some years - the focus is changing. Our original purpose was to encourage the preservation of the big "super luxury" cars of the late 1920's thru the late 1930's. Our judging rules were set up to encourage historical accuracy, meaning, a "100 point" car would be one that most faithly represents its condition as a new car on delivery day. Down thru the years, we have had great fun arguing about what to do about OVER-restored cars - cars essentially turned into costume jewelery, that look spectacular, but are finished in materials that did not exist during the classic era. By the early 1920's, the more expensive cars could be ordered with "factory installed" fairly sophsticated heating systems. From your descrption, what you have in your particular car may not fall under that category. However, ALL car dealers had profitable sidelines of adding accessories at the dealer level. The "factory installed" heaters were obviously more expensive than something that could be quickly installed by hanging them on the firewall. So LOTS of cars of that era had those dealer-installed heaters. The problem I see you could have with a "picky" judge, is arguing whether that heater was "dealer installed", or an "after-market" installation installed AFTER the classic era ended. And if it was "after-market", was it installed during the classic era (we accept cars that were re-bodied during the classic era). Have you thought of just servicing the car and enjoying it as a delightful mechanical device, coming on CCCA tours and events, and not worrying too much about what others think of your car..?

you people better "get with the program" and stop this abusive description of this car as "57 Plymouth". Dont you people watch TV shows about cars, or read automotive news articles...? It is a "CLASSIC '57 Plymouth". (people who forget (or wont) try to "tack on" the word "classic" to whatever they are promoting..are just fighting the trend....

the important thing to remember, is that the descriptions of motor oil are like any other product subject to mass-merchandising advertising campaigns...UTTER NONSENCE. "Detergent" oil ? Of course there is no such thing. The term "detergent" was selected by advertising clowns who recognized most people do not know, and do not want to be bothered with technical explanations. In the late 1940's, oil engineers came up with a formula by which the oil molecules no longer "link up" to form sludge at normal operating temps. Of course "detergent" oils do NOT have the effect of soap; can NOT dissolve ANYTHING. They simply wont ADD to EXISTING sludge. The ONLY reason for recommeding a so called "NON detergent" - meaning an oil that WILL produce sludge, is if you have a friend or family in the engine over-haul business who needs some more work. In the days BEFORE the oil engineers came up with the so called "detergent" ( or, again, oil that will not form sludge) engines typically ran about 40-60,000 mi. before needing a complete rebuild. Once we had "non sludging" (if you like the silly and inaccurate term "detergent" use it) engine life increased dramatically. The second nonsence term is "mutli grade" oil. Of COURSE what we CALL "single grade" oil has multiple grades, depending on the temp. Of course MULTI grade oil stays a predictible viscosity at all operating temps. It will flow when very cold, and not thin out when it gets very hot. The big advantage of these so called "multi grade" oils is that they continue to flow to vital parts at low temps when you first start up on a cold morning, and do not thin out at extreme temps. Of course so called "single grade" oils do not have to meet ANY viscosity standard EXCEPT at 210 degrees. Thus if you are in the engine repair business, or have a relative who is so employed and needs more work, by all means recommend so called "single grade" oils. When the car is cold, they are so thick, they cannot provide good lubrication, so you get destructive wear. In the mid-1950's, I went thru the very sludged up engine on my '38 Packard V-12. At the time, to try and help my buddies understand that the new "detergent" oils can not remove sludge, I left a couple of areas of sludge on some of the crank-throws, and some places on the crank-shaft bearing webbs. Of course, some 150,000 mi. later, on a regular "diet" of 10-30W oil (dosnt matter what brand..they all have to meet the same SAE / ASTM standards) that "test" sludge is still there - the rest of the engine remains clean and reliable. The important thing to remember, is that much advertising these days, is geared to try and get into the "head" of the ignorant. Try and be smart, and figure out what is REALLY going on.

As I noted in an earlier "post", in my view, this whole "deal" was nothing but an advertising promotion. Again, there have been standardized technqiues for PROPERLY preparing machinery for long term storage, known since well before the FIRSTD World War, when we shipped thousands of vehicles to Europe, knowing they would be in a highly corrosive enviornment. In this case, as I noted, the pool contractor who poured the "casket" was a licensed concrete contractor, who knew darn well you dont try and use poured concrete until it has "cured". That concrete "sweats" a highly corrosive vapor and liquid is not exactly late news - the Roman Empire, who made wide use of poured concrete thousands of years ago, knew this, and passed their knowledge on to subsequent civilizations thru elaborate engineering publications. Tossing that thing into that casing after the concrete had only three days since it was poured, is in my view, the most definitve proof that those people couldn't have cared less about the car or its contents - they just wanted some publicity for their various products. Given the promoters obvious contempt for the vehicle, I dont see why the general car buff public should feel any differently ! Oh..sorry..I forgot...reading the publicity nonsense, I forgot to say...it wasnt a 1957 Plymouth...it was a CLASSIC 1957 Plymout. Ooops...sorry..folks..I didnt read the latest publicity articles...it is a TRUE CLASSIC 1957 Plymouth....!

re : egge Pistons I have two motors I installed (myself) Egge pistons in. In both cases, they have given great service over many TENS of thousands of miles, MOST of my driving is at high speeds (yes, both vehicles have "trick" rear-end gearing, otherwise stock. Both are "long stroke" V-12' that are completely stock except for raised compression ratios. The '36 American La France V-12 is an over-head cam 800 cu in monster - story & can be seen on the cover of ENJINE-ENJINE-ENJINE magazine ( the fire engine club ) (issues "1989-4" and "1988-2"). Egge pistons installed in the mid 1980's, amongst other trips, took me to the Detroit and New York fire engine musters & back, and this included charging up the famous Kingman and Needles "grades" in July heat! The Packard V-12 also has a high compression head, but is otherwise stock (except, again, for a "trick" rear axle to lower the rpm at extreme speeds. I have NEVER heard of a Packard V-12 with Egge pistons coming apart. Now - a word about fitting pistons - side-wall clearances. Late 1930's era Packards had a steel strut "auto-thermic" piston, that could be fitted a LOT closer than a standard aluminum "slug" type like I bought from Egge (these have to be fitted "sloppy loose" to make up for expansion when they get hot). If you use the much tighter factory clearances from an engine with "auto-thermic" pistons you WILL have problems, and COULD break a piston or two - when they got hot, at the very least, the "drag" will cause over-heating and will slow cranking speed way down when trying to start "hot".

for Sheperd - regarding his comments on the Classic Car Club Of America, and post-1940 Cadillacs. You are right - it makes little sense, as the '41 thru '47 Cads. are essentially the same cars structurally and mechanically (with the exception of some cosmetic sheet metal, and some improvements to the Hydra-matic transmission resulting from World War II experience, taking advantage of the successful "beefing up" of that transmission used in light tanks). Anyway - here's some background, to help you understand the situation better. Let me make it clear I am not now an officer of the Classic Car Club Of America; these comments are strictly my own. For the first 30 or so years of its existence, the CCCA was composed primarily of ordinary car buff types, who really didnt care what the cars were worth - we just liked em for what they were. In those years, we had a pretty clear idea what the word "classic" meant, when applied to automobiles. Taken form the dictionaries of an earlier era, we "knew" that "classic" had two parallel meanings, which explains why we adopted that THEN little used word, for the cars we felt were worth saving. If you can get your hands on a book I am about to recommend, you can learn a lot about what the CCCA was about in those years. The book is CLASSIC CARS AND ANTIQUES by Robert J. Gottlieb, a now deceased Los Angeles lawyer who was active in the Club from its first days. In that book, he explains why the word "classic", as it was used then, was the correct word to describe the cars that we felt were worth saving. First, the word meant "unique, of first rank, representing the HIGHEST standard of excellence". Thus, as to cars, we were interested in the biggest, most powerful "super luxury" cars. An ordinary middle class Packard, Cadillac, or Lincoln was not of interest to us - only the best for us ! I distinctly remember the scorn I received when I showed up at an early CCCA event in So. Calif. with my '34 Packard Super Eight sedan, since it clearly was not in the same league, either in power, size, weight, top speed, nor interior fittings, as the 16 cylinder Cadillacs, Pierce Arrow and Packard V-12's that were present. The second parallel definition of the word "classic" had to do with the "school of design" of "claccisim", meaning "form follows function". That refers to the fact that in a TRUE classic car, the fender, the headlight, the hood, the trunk, the radiator, the body, each stands out as a separate design element - the very antithesis of the "art deco" / "streamlined" era that hit in the late 1930's. Thus the idea that a '41 or later car, with its headlights & grill, hood, all merged into the fenders, could EVER be considered a "classic" would not have occured to us. That is..until the general car buff public changed its attitude towards us. Once the idea of saving big luxury cars became "acceptable", values shot up, and EVERYONE wanted to call what THEY were trying to sell, "CLASSIC". It is that simple. No question that a 1941 Cadillac of any series could be ordered with a high speed rear axle for sustained crusing at 90 mph or better, with air conditioning, power windows, and automatic transmission, pressurized cooling system..etc...etc...would be a more pleasant car to drive around in than a 1931 Cadillac V-16 Empress Imperial limo or town car. When people have something they want to sell, they want to use "nice" words to sell it. So - there you are - once the word "classic" became a desirable one for merchandising, EVERYTHING is now "classic". Please dont mis-understand - then as now, the CCCA has a policy of ENCOURAGING inter-mingling old car buffs at events - we LOVE 'joint events' with all manner of old technology buffs. My fondest memories of the old days, are when we had joint events with..well..antique train buffs...boat buffs...airplane buffs...other kinds of old car buffs...etc....etc. But the fact is..you are RIGHT...today - there is NO logic to what people do when they babble the word "classic".

thank you for that VERY interesting material confirming your statement that the Ramblers had LEGIT rust-proofing in the 1950's. I did not know that. I am impressed. Being a snob, I have always dismissed anything less than the biggest, most powerful "super-luxury" cars of ANY era, as "wheels for the peasants"...certainly not with my time learning about. I would have to admit the kind of rust-proofing your literature shows, makes me re-think SOME of my prejudices ! Yes, there was some TOKEN attempt to protect car under-bodies with various kinds of under-coat, (my recollection this was typically a dealer option, usually way over-priced) but nothing by any other manufacturer, at least not that I am aware, that was anything as competent as what your literature shows. Thanks for the info !

Gariepy raises an interesting point in his idea of sealing up cars and then coming back and reviewing them, as a way of improving judging standards. Obviously, "over-restoration" is the practice these days at car shows, and Gariepy's "post" confirms what most of us who actually appreciate cars for what they are, know. And that is, cars are built and sold to be mechanical devices, not costume jewelry. The finest cars from the REAL "classic" era, as delivered new, would probably be laughed off most car show fields, both beacuse the quality and the materials used, wouldn't "cut it" when compared to what commercial restoration shops do today. But lets be honest as to what most car shows are about. Historical accuracy? In some cases, more or less. But the fact is, if you are a promoter, or exhibitor, or otherwise selling tickets to or responsible fo the success of a car show, you have a responsibility to "please the crowd". In the Classic Car Club Of America judging, we like to say that all cars entered are 100 point cars if they accurately represent their condition as a new car on delivery day. Thus, we did not have the concept of "winner" for many years. But that was when most people thought it was nuts to rescue old cars. The concept of "nostalgia" did not exist ( I dont even recall hearing hearing the word "nostalgia" when I was a car nut in the 1950's). The public is not going to pay good money unless it gets a good show. So two or three part "clear coat" paint finishes, over-chroming everything you can get into a chrome tank, all are part of what it takes to put on a successful car show. So of course Gariepy's point is well-taken; assuming a car COULD be preserved in the condition as delivered, and entered into competition against something from one of the big commercial resotration firms, it most likely wouldnt win a banana in a car-show of today.

Too bad - because I LIKE looking at Paris Hilton. Looking at a used Plymouth dosnt do much for me. Incidentally, be assured that how to PROPERLY prepare a mechanical device for long term storage is not exactly rocket science, and was certainly well known when we started shipping large numbers of vehicles to Europe for World War ONE. By the Second World War, the processes of properly preserving machinery were pretty standardized (and successful, as anyone who has found LEGIT. World War Two surplus can attest to). Let's be honest - that whole "Tulsa Time Capsule" thing was nothing but a cheap advertising "con"; anyone who knows anything about building codes and concrete, KNOWS the pool company who poured the so-called "capsule" knew better than to allow it to be used before "curing", and certainly knew how to seal it. But why would they care about a car ? They were in business to SELL. There are plenty of used 1957 Plymouths around that people actually CARED about - so this is not exactly a loss to humanity. Yes, many manufacturers of automobiles have been FORCED into a sense of responsibility towards their customers, and are now properly rust-proofing their products at the factory. Of COURSE this wasnt done in the 1950's. But so what. Even a modern car with all its factory-installed anti corrosion materials wouldnt have survived the kind of abuse the Tulsa "cons" inflicted. Just remember, folks - we have a new religion in the car hobby. You'd darn well BETTER call ANYTHING you are trying to palm off, a "CLASSIC" or people will get VERY angry.

Did anyone notice the general news stories on this - invariably, they said "CLASSIC 1957 PLYMOUTH" and then a discussion...well.that was unti about two hours ago..when the caption was changed to "TRUE CLASSIC 1957 PLYMOUTH"...just confirming my "hunch" that the word "classic" has now become a full-blown OBSESSION - that people simply cannot discuss any old used car without calling it a "classic" and/or "antique". Does anyone know whether there would be anything wrong with calling a 1957 PLYMOUTH...well..think about it...what would be the harm in calling...a 1957 PLYMOUTH....a ...well...1957 Plymouth..?

Hi gain Dave ! RE : your question about "final drive" ratios. My recollection (someone who knows more about this will hopefully help us out) is that the gearing of your over-drive is approx. .72%, or .72 x 4.11 = 2.95. Yes, your "math" is correct, and explains why the "356" is such a nice car at speed. Looking foward to those photos - I havn't driven a "356" since the mid 1950's !

Hey Dave - stop worrying about it ! All you have demonstrated - is the obvious - the faster you go (and knowing how nice a "356" is to drive "at speed" in over-drive I sure cant blame you...!) the more significance the relative wind has. I am not surprised at EITHER of your two figures - my suspicion is your "356" is running just fine. I hope you arent making the mistake of trying to compare your own "356"'s mileage, with the figures from the old MOBLIGAS ECONOMY RUN figures. My recollection is that no-one ever ran a "356" in that competition - they were all "small" engined Packards. And, if memory serves, they pumped the tires up real hard, and backed the brake shoes way off...stuff like that. I understand with this new format, you can post photos. Love to see some interior shots - been a long time since I had the pleasure of monkeying around with a "356" Clipper.

can you post a photograph of it - this is a new one on me !

Hey Clipper ! That is GREAT gas mileage for a 356 ! That 20 mpg you referred to sounds about right for the "120" (much smaller displacement and lower powered "short nose" Clippers.

I am puzzled by this post about thermostats and pipes and springs. I owned several post classic era (meaning after 1939) Packard straight eight cylinder cars (oh, roughly two dozen including '40 & '41 180's, a '41 Clipper (long nose with "120" engine) 47 Clipper Delux (that's a "short nose" with the "120" engine) '47 Clipper Super (that's the "long nose" with the 356 engine), a couple of "bath-tubs", (folks - the term "bath-tub" is not an insult - it is a "term of endearment" for the change of exterior sheet metal in 1948-1950 over the basic 1941-'47 Clipper body shell) plus a number of '51 thru '54. Each and every one of these cars had a conventional thermostat located NOT in a pipe, but in a cast iron housing that bolted to the front of the cyl. head. No springs. You just put the gasket down, put the gasket in its place, and screw on the cap - screws. What am I missing here..?

I want to apologize to Brad for my sarcastic (and now deleted) response to his comments about connecting rod bearings. Brad is correct, IF he is limiting his response to acceptable shop practices to engines of the pre 1920's era. As Brad notes, on these very VERY slow turning small crank-pin "T" head type engines, re-pouring originally poured babbit rod bearings most certainly IS an acceptable shop proceedure. My criticism of Brad's excellent comments, should have been clearer - for that I again apologize. I should have made the distinction between the fellow with the '08 Buick, and the MUCH higher r.p.m. engines of the twenties and later. I personally believe there is NO excuse for not spending the extra effort to install "insert" type rod bearing shells. Again, once we get into the more modern higher rotating speed engines of the 20's and later. As I noted in my numerous "posts" repeatedly, elsewhere in these forums, except for Buick and Chevrolet, the industry abandoned the "poured babbet" concept by the mid 1930's. And for good reason. As Brad notes, once we start spinning engines faster than the old "antiques" ( here, using the word "antique" in its traditional manner, meaning the old slow turning engines of before, oh, say around 1918) "insert/precision shell" type rod bearings are, in my view, the only legit. alternative. And, as I noted in another thread, Brad is absolutely right that sub-standard machine work in trying to adapt a modern "insert" type bearing into an old connecting rod that was initially "poured", most certainly WILL result in disaster. And the sad fact is, I have seen many examples supporting Brad's view - which result in disappointed car buffs abandoning our hobby. I noted elsewhere the tragedy of trying to drive cars with "poured babbit" connecting rod bearings (again, now referring to cars of the late 1920's and later) - underscored in the newspaper articles covering the opening of the Penn. Turnpike in 1938. Rod bearing failure owing to the inadequacy of the poured babbit concept became an epidemic as a result of the faster speeds the roads of the 1930's permitted. Virtually NO manufacturer of automotive, marine, aviation, etc. motors is using the old "poured babbit" concept today, even tho it costs much more in machinery and labor time to make a connecting rod bearing using the precision shells. The fellow with the '08 Buick will do well to listen to Brad's excellent advice. There are a number of quality restorers of antique engines (again, using the word "antique" in its correct techncial definition - applying to cars built before the 1920's) who can perform the service of re-pouring connecting rods of that era.