F&J

32 Nash 1063 convertible sedan

Recommended Posts

I worked on my Ford for 3 months with not one day off, even though several days were just a hour or so.

 

It is finally on the road, with just a couple minor glitches.  My 6 months of use on the new fuel pump diaphragm material started leaking now that it is pumping faster on road tests.  It has had gas in it for 6 months with running in and out of shop.

 

I did already have a new high quality Napa Facet low pressure electric booster pump in the rear, to prime the carbs, so it took less than a half hour to make up some bypass fittings for the mechanical pump.  The car is perfect for the roads I want to drive; back roads and faster State roads.

 

 

BUT...I miss working on the Nash.  I really think I will have more enjoyment with that stock 6 cylinder flathead on these roads.  I thought of an idea to fix my donor steering box issue.  I am going to take the worm gear out and see if the local antique NOS parts place can find a match as far as diameter and length, but with a reverse worm groove.  I know he has some NOS and old Nors worms.  If not, I will see if Lares Corp can make one.

 

I watched some videos of Hershey and spotted one 32-33 Nash 8 sedan in the corral, and saw a bigger 8 coupe going onto the show field.

 

I always wished I would have found a bigger 32 Nash to drive, but I really think this little one should be nicer on the roads here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still working on a solution for my unrepairable Nash steering box which is a Ross box.

 

I "found" a 1933 Nash Big Six steering box, and was shocked that it is a different designed box.  1933 Nash Six cars look identical to my 1932 except the dash and gauges were restyled, and they went to steel artillery wheels.   The body/fenders/chassis look identical, same wheelbase, everything...

 

Can anybody help identify the maker of this 1933 box below?  It has 4 cover bolts instead of 5 like my Ross.  I am not sure if this 33 is a Ross or not?  I'd like to understand why Nash would have made a change like this?  That 1932 second series Ross box was first used on the 32 second series, not on the 32 first series.  So, why such a short run on the partial-year late 32?

 

Could it be that the Ross had defects? or could it be complaints on it not turning sharp enough?  That was noticeable to me when I tried to steer it onto sharp turn situations. It goes to full sweep on the box but it just has a huge turning radius.

 

I am thinking about buying the 1933 box which is on the west coast, as I just doubt I will find a late 32 box.  I don't even have a price on it, or shipping costs yet..

 

Should I go for it?  or does anyone know if this looks like a Saginaw?  I think those steer better, if it is.

 

 

33 nash parts 006.JPG

33 nash parts 007.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reposting a pic of my 32 box below.

 

I've been looking at steering boxes in old Motors manuals back to 1935.  The only brand of box that seems to use the square head locking bolt with jamb nut near the column end, are various different models of Ross .  That bolt locks the large nut on the top of box, at the column tube.

 

So, it looks like the 33 box cover is smaller?  I can't tell.  If it's smaller, it may be the cheaper Ross model that has a "fixed" peg riding in the worm.  The 32 with bigger cover, has a bearing mounted peg that needs more room, I imagine.

 

I was also thinking that for 33, Nash tried to cut costs to get the car prices down, as it was a bad time for USA sales.  So, now I wonder if it was just a cheaper box.....not a better box?  

 

 

 

dscn0619.jpg

Edited by F&J (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Studebaker used Ross steering boxes. Might any of them be adapted? I suppose the important measurements are the length of the column, the length of the sector shaft to the chassis mounting and the measurements of the steering arm mounting shaft. You may be able to fit something to the chassis if you drill new holes and use an adapter plate? You may also have to get the steering = drop = Pitman arm that goes with the box to get it to mount to the spline?

 

I would imagine you can, if necessary, make an adapter to mount the steering wheel.

 

It seems to me that you have one objective: to find a steering box. Thus whether any brand is "better" than another is a moot point. Your turning circle may also be regulated by the limit stops on the axle-steering set-up rather than by the steering box and the length of the worm or whatever?

 

This all sounds very complicated! I hope you can find a simple, straight-forward way to get a steering box that works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Spinneyhill said:

Your turning circle may also be regulated by the limit stops on the axle-steering set-up rather than by the steering box and the length of the worm or whatever?

 

It seems that the Ross design of a single peg running in the worm groove, limits how many degrees that the sector/pitman shaft can rotate.  The peg can only travel (in it's arc) just so far, before it arcs away from the worm.  The much-later, and much bigger, twin-peg Ross box might have given more rotation, because as one peg starts to sweep off of the worm, the other peg is still in the groove of the worm.

 

 

I will try to buy the 33 box.  I spoke on the phone with the seller, and he wants to "think it over".  I never ran into this before.  Nobody else on the planet would want a 33 box, as nobody is restoring these cars anymore. 

 

Funny thing about the "small world" .  The 33 owner sent 9 pics.  One pic showed the painted grille shell, and I instantly "knew that car" as one I saw on YouTube years ago.  When I was talking with guy last night, he was surprised that I knew his car.  He had no idea it was on the video, which was made by someone selling it years ago.  The engine was missing, so I can see how the 33 box fits into the chassis in the beginning of this video:

 

I also should join the Nash Car Club, even though it says less than 2000 members, and that covers all Nash years, and into the 60s Ramblers, as well as Metropolitans.   That makes me think I won't have very many contacts for other 1932 owners in their membership roster, that is only accessible by current paid members.

 

 

I think the future of restoring/saving oddball makes from the early 1930s is dismal.  In the 8+ years since I found mine, I have not found anybody else trying to put a 32 Nash back to what it looked like when new.  I have found some people who street-rod them, and did find some very important parts that way. Interesting that all of these rodders have been in their 60s to near 70s in age.  The golden years of "restoring" seems long ago.  Any "stock" car that never was fixed up in the 60s-70s, will never be put back on the road except for street rods, it seems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a '32 Nash 1080 sedan.  It is slowly coming back to life with a freshly rebuilt engine.  I met someone this summer with a nicely restored '32 convertible.  They're out there and there are people interested.  But I do agree that people who embrace the oddball/orphan makes are few and far between.  It takes a lot of research, effort, time, and most importantly patience which seems to be where a lot of people find a least resistive path.

 

Dan

IMG_2670.JPG

IMG_2696.JPG

IMG_2697.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, alsancle said:

That is cool and I don't think I have ever seen one in person.

 

I haven't seen one in person either.  There apparently were a high percentage of 32 bigger series that did not have the sidemounts. 

 

At some point, I will take a picture of a large 1932 sales poster I have here, showing very few sidemounts.   Here is just the corner of it showing the entry level 1060's..

 

5 hours ago, Olympic33 said:

 It takes a lot of research, effort, time, and most importantly patience

 

I still have patience, but seem to be at a point of futility with my non-restorable steering box.  I assume my offer on the 33 box was no where near enough, as no counter offer yet.

 

That 1080 must ride like a cloud.  Nice car.

 

 

I also added a complete pic of a similar, but much smaller 1933 poster I have.  I still find it amazing on how may different sizes (and engines) that Nash built during the worst of the Depression.

 

 

 

1932 NASH.JPG

DSCN0750.thumb.JPG.4438bb745960010458e2ca3138a68fb2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, alsancle said:

So is the 1080 the Advanced and the 1090 Ambassador?   Or do those designations refer to wheelbase?

 

1080 is Advanced 8.

 

1090 is Ambassador...but..  There were two series of Ambassador chassis;

 

Look at the very bottom of that 33 poster; of 3 cars which are sedans on the massive 142" ? chassis.  The other 5 Ambassadors shown above those, in the right hand corner are smaller WB.

 

I could be very wrong, but I thought I read somewhere, that in 1932, there were 3 known convertible sedans built on the 142 chassis.  I honestly thought it said only one was known to exist.  My 32 full-line Poster does not show that, it shows only sedans on 142

 

 

The 33 poster does have an error:  It does not show a 1933 SIX 2dr convertible sedan, but there is at least one documented known survivor with 100% correct body series 1933 tag.  So, the Poster for 32 might not have shown these 3 purported 142" convertibles...if it was a model that was quickly dropped from the line-up? 

 

Maybe somebody can verify the existence of those 3.  I can't. 

 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as to wheelbase. I forgot to say that the Advanced 8 is shorter than the smallest Abassador.

 

My 1932 Poster is Dutch/Holland market:

 

It gives WB in meters:

-Advanced is 3.25

-Ambassador base is 3.38

-Ambassador largest is 3.61  I just looked up the inches conversion: (142-1/8" )

 

.

Edited by F&J (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Frank.  I remember about 10 - 12 years ago a White Glove had a 1090 Ambassador with a rear mounted spare that I loved.  But he wanted 70k which seemed like a lot of money.  I think the car was resto-moded which is kind of a shame because it was a nice older restoration.   I could only find a small "before" picture.   Also what I think is the car post "restoration".

 

$_35.JPGnash-ambassador-1932-4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, alsancle said:

White Glove had a 1090 Ambassador with a rear mounted spare that I loved.  But he wanted 70k which seemed like a lot of money.  I think the car was resto-moded which is kind of a shame because it was a nice older restoration.  

 

I recall it quite well, but I saw it on his Ebay list less than 8? years ago.   I am fairly certain that it was said to be original right down to over-polished paint that was showing primer.  I believe it was an original Arizona car that went to a collector named "Andy" in Europe for several decades. (maybe France or England).  It was then sold at auction in the UK, and it may have been Bloomie who bought it there, not sure.  He said in his ad after a relist, "come on people...this is the rarest Nash out there" or similar.   The 142 cars are where the nickname came from as the "Kenosha Duesenbergs", back when new.

 

 

I have no idea how few 142s were made in 32-33 (that look identical in those two years).  I only found one 1932 on the Nash Club "members photos".  It does not say if it is a 142, but it sure looks like one.  I'd bet it is.  Pics below.  I'd also bet you like the wheel and tire color :) ..me too.

 

Interesting that rear spares were more popular then?

 

 

32_1097.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, F&J said:

 

 

32_1097.jpg

 

Wow! What a classy looking car!! I had no idea that Nash produced cars like this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, r1lark said:

Wow! What a classy looking car!! I had no idea that Nash produced cars like this.

 

We remember Nash from the 50s... :)   not the classic era...

 

When I first started going to Hershey in 1971, I never knew about them either.  One of those early years there, I saw a 1932 First Series 990 Nash long wheelbase Ambulance that really caught my eye.  I had no idea what it was until I looked at the grille emblem :)

 

and a few years later, I went to a sawmill in northern Mass, where a long time Nash collector had a huge original 4dr convertible sedan which from a distance, I thought was a Duesenberg...until a millworker told me it was a Nash.  Years later, Tom Lester (Lester Tire Co)bought it and pics are somewhere in my thread. 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you are making me regret not stepping up to the plate.  I had not fully learned to appreciate closed cars back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, alsancle said:

  I think the car was resto-moded which is kind of a shame because it was a nice older restoration.   I could only find a small "before" picture.   Also what I think is the car post "restoration".

 

 

The orange car with brown fenders is not the black one that White Glove had in your post.  The orange one was found in a field in Texas by Larry Woods "Mattel Hot Wheels" designer, back in the 70's?, and restomodded by him back then. It has since had a more recent refresh, with at least new paint. 

 

The White Glove car just might still be surviving "as found", because originality was starting to be a huge plus when it was sold by W.G.

 

A side note to the White Glove car; ...Side mount fenders and tire covers were located by W.G., but I am fairly certain the buyer did not purchase those, as I saw them relisted on Ebay after the Nash was sold.

 

 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This car looks great with the rear mounted spare.  The only thing better would be double rear mounted spare.

 

As a Mercedes guy i was trained that the rear spare was always better but have noticed that some American cars do look better with sidemounts.

 

Hopefully it is getting a great period resto or has been left in nice original condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It took me a while to find the earlier colors chosen for the Larry Woods 142" Town Sedan, aka Brougham.   The car was like this for 30+? years.. Tan with painted wheels.

 

I'm not sure the date of the last redo, but I think it was recent times. 

 

It seems like many of the bigger series (80 and 90)  32-33 Nash cars surviving today,(especially closed models) are tough to track down on the web.  It makes me wonder if there are many more that have never been on any website.

 

One model that I have never seen survived, is the Big Six 60 series cabriolet.  I've looked for nearly 10 years, and find no hint of any survivors.  There are 2 known-to-me survivor 70 series small 8 (flathead) cabriolets.  One in the Netherlands, one brought back to USA from France.  Might have seen a third, but I cannot recall for sure.  I wish there was a database for these 32-33 surviving Nash cars of all models.

 

 

 

 

1932Nash-Ambassador8-Brougham.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waiting for door skins for a customers 34 Ford truck, so I took the day off to try to find a donor steering box..

 

I missed out on a 31 Buick series 60 box in upstate NY on AACA this week, so then I recalled seeing a farm cut down 33 Buick midsize series at an old country wrecking yard an hour from here.  The owner did not want to part it out, but I did ask if I could lift the hood to see if it looked like the wrong-way 34 Buick box that steers so nice.  It looks identical to me, but turns the right way because it was the last year I beam axle before the new IFS in 34.

 

So he said: "go out back...behind the huge stack of crushed cars; there's an early 30s cut down Dodge up on top of a container body....and there is a late 20s early 30 Chevy cut down on the opposite side of the place, or just poke around..."

 

Found the Dodge first; it must be a 32, dual top cowl vents, sturdy X type chassis, motor is gone but it must be a six chassis, due to the length from firewall to front axle?  I tried steering it; the column bracket had rusted off the dash and they must have bent the column with loading it up there.  Ten feet off the ground!  Mountain climbing on a crane truck, then jump over to the roof of the container.. :)

 

Then got down to go hunt more.  Did not find the Chevy right away where he said, but found a BIG car doodle-bug, 31-32 GM, straight 8, the trans and aircleaner looked like 34 LaSalle, but I still could not ID it.  Dual headlight bars, dual sidemount braces, fold down convertible coupe windshield base, dash mounted ride-control to shocks.... , (he later said it's Olds). DUH me.... That is why some parts looked like 34 LaSalle, as I knew those cars used Olds straight 8's during 34-36. (it once was a 32 Olds 8 cyl sidemount conv coupe...very rare car)

 

That doodlebug is a disaster, it has two transmissions, and a welded-in Model A or 32 Ford 1.5 ton front axle, chassis cut off at 2nd trans.  The box did not feel too good at all, but the drag link was smashed against the frame and the front wheel rims were tangled in junk when I tried to steer it.  It looked beefier than the Dodge box, and seemed maybe easier to make it fit the Nash.

 

I was going to buy that one too, if I had time enough, but I wanted to take the 32 Dodge one out first.  I found the Chevy next, but those are tiny crappy boxes as it was a dirt cheap car.  It had a badly smashed column anyways, and frozen solid with rust.

 

Found out that my pitman arm puller can't fit these types of arms so close to the frame side, but I found a way to get it off on the 32 Dodge.  I decided to skip the 32 Olds box for now, too much work to get that one out today.

 

Here is the Dodge box, the one that still has the outer column tube.  The one without is the 32 Nash.  The Dodge turns the exact number of turns, but the Dodge Sector shaft (output shaft) turns more degrees than the Nash.  That will get the turning radius better than the Nash, just like the wrong way 34 Buick box did.

 

I'll take the wheel and column off to straighten the inner column shaft, then test fit it in the Nash. (you can see the bent column in one pic below) .... I need to get this steering ordeal settled before I'm too old to drive the car...  :( 

dscn0808.jpg

DSCN0809.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took the Dodge box apart yesterday to see why it felt a bit stiff when in the junked car, still hooked to the front wheels,...... but then it felt so smooth when out of the car, and the outer column tube was removed from the bent inner shaft.

 

I was washing out the bore hole where the two thick bronze bushings are for the sector(pitman) shaft.  After getting the black goo out, I saw something I never saw before:  See the sketch below.   The inner bushing was no longer pressed into the machined hole right near the sector teeth.  The bushing was flopping around in the cavity between the two bushing locations.

 

That inner bushing keeps the sector teeth firmly against the worm gear.  With the bushing "gone", and a heavy load applied during steering the front wheels, the sector shafts teeth tries to move away from the worm when you try to steer the wheels.  That causes a binding.

 

I can't figure out why, or how that bushing got moved sideways into that cavity in normal use.  It is a press fit.  I was able to get in from the outer end hole and press it back into the machined spot.  It fits very tight like it should.  If you look at the pictures of the two steering boxes above, the pinch-lock bolt near the column tube was missing.  I assume someone had this box apart?  There is no reason to loosen that bolt unless you are adjusting the worm bearings preload, or if you are taking the worm out.  Still does not explain if, or why, the guy rammed that bushing in way too far? A person would have known it was too far if pressing a new one in, as the bushing would "fall" into the cavity.

 

Anyways, there is not even one hint of rust on anything inside the box.  The worm has roller bearings instead of balls, so that is better design.  Also, all cars had the inner races of the worm as a machined-in part of the worm gear.  These are normally pitted/rusted or damaged.  These are mint, as well as the bearings.  My Nash worm races are chewed beyond repair, so that is one more reason that box could never be repaired;  It would need a new worm, and a new sector shaft and roller pin. 

 

I straightened the inner column shaft, reassembled and adjusted all 3 adjustments, and I guess it's time to get this box to fit the Nash.  I will not need to modify the Nash frame bolt pattern.  I will make a tapered wedge adapter plate to fit the Nash pattern and the Dodge pattern.  That way I have changed nothing on the Nash in case there is a need to scrap the Dodge system later.

 

Working on such an obscure orphan brand of car is a huge challenge that most people don't want to deal with. :(

 

 

DSCN0810.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a good day.    I am keeping my build thread going to help me stay motivated.. :)

 

I test fit the Dodge box into the opening. There is no room for the adapter wedge plate that I was going to make. So, I will re-use the homemade 3 bolt triangular plate that I made for the 34 Buick box.  I now need to cut off the bolt hole wings on the Dodge flange, then weld the triangle to the Dodge casting, like I did with the Buick.

 

On thing worth mentioning:  1932 is when many car companies changed from the old ladder frames, to the new X center frames.  Many of these new X frames also then had fully boxed front frame rails.   This causes the steering boxes to be bolted to the inside of the boxed frame rail.   My Nash and that 32 Dodge were these same X chassis design with boxed rails....

 

When the box was bolted in the older open channel frame rail, right at the outer frame side, that meant that the very outside tip of the sector housing was very ridged when you hit a bad pothole, and the pitman arm then gets slammed.  The nice thing about the 32 Dodge, is that when taking the box out at the wrecking yard, I saw that Dodge machined the tip of the sector snout to fit firmly into the center hole in the outer frame side.  That really takes the stress off of the mounting bolts and inner frame sidewall because the box is now supported by both the inside, and outside of the boxed frame.

 

The Nash did not do that; the hole in the frame was larger than the Nash snout diameter.   So I made a adapter out of mild steel on the lathe.  Miracles do happen; first trial fit left a nice press fit into the Nash frame, (I will tack weld it later) and more of a miracle, the inner bore fit the Dodge snout perfectly.   Now it will be a very strong mounting. First pic shows the box has not been installed all the way into the new bushing..

 

Next was the pitman arm issue.  The Nash spline was larger.  I was assuming, when at the wrecking yard, that I'd need to cut/weld/splice the lower curved part of the Nash arm to the splined part of the Dodge arm.  But, I now see that I might be OK with the entire stock Dodge pitman; The S bend is almost identical down to only 1/8" offset difference.  

 

The center of draglink ball, to center of spline hole is 5/8" shorter than the Nash.  That could have been a bad thing, but the Dodge sector shaft rotates more degrees than the Nash box did.  So, it should steer "lighter", and basic math says it should steer to a tighter turning circle, compared to the Nash box that did not steer enough due to that Ross "worm & peg design".  I hope :)

 

I still need to graft the Nash outer column tube with ignition/steering lock, to the Dodge box.  Lucky once more, even though the outer columns are slightly different diameters.  All I need to do is cut off the very lowest 2" of the Dodge tube to fit into the box, and the Nash tube is a nice snug fit into that slice of tube.  That was nice to see.

 

I still don't have a good steering wheel to fit.  The 34 Buick wheel I restored years ago just looks too big and beefy, and it has a huge diameter taper at the keyway.

 

The Dodge wheel is junk as you can see.  I could not get a puller to get a good grab on the rotted underside, so I ran the sucker through the band saw.  Now this will fit into my press, to press out and save the Dodge taper and threads.  I could make a new one on my lathe with it's tapering attachment, but with also cutting new threads, and milling a keyway, I prefer to just weld the old one on.  And, since the Dodge shaft is too long, it needed cutting/welding anyways..

 

 

In first pic you can see most of the Nash design sidemount-iron base, and it's central post.  Looks as big as what a Duesenberg would need..

 

 

oh, and right before I quit for the day, I did reach in and turn the steering shaft... he. he, it steers the right way now.  LOL

 

 

DSCN0811.JPG

DSCN0813.JPG

DSCN0812.JPG

DSCN0814.JPG

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...