Jump to content

32 Nash 1063 convertible sedan


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Steve_Mack_CT said:

Saturday motivation shamelessly stolen from facebook (which is good for something at least...) ūüėä

FB_IMG_1603540907838.jpg

That is a "First Series" 1932 which used up the older leftover 1931 bodies.  Mine is the Second Series 1932 with more streamlined front fenders, grille shell and body shell.  The newer 32 body has a raked-back windshield and posts, and has swoopy beltlines. Almost no parts will fit mine, but I did modify it's steering box for mine, as it is not a Ross box and is superior.

50 minutes ago, alsancle said:

Those general jumbos or whatever they are don’t look right.

That cropped photo was taken outside of a Vogue brand tire store, and I agree.

 

 

A few days ago,

DSCN3344.thumb.JPG.f3f7c6d5f61a5fda1dfc5be5e2087553.JPG

I wanted to get the chassis outside for powerwashing, and it seemed easier to clamp a seat on and drive it out, rather than trying to lift the back end up and move it with the bucket crawler.

 

 

It took an hour or so to strip it down:

DSCN3361.thumb.JPG.f03426494138708f21b85a825dfc6f21.JPG

 

The rebuilt engine is supposed to be picked up in California tomorrow.  More pics below of things that are wrong on my engine:

 

I am missing the oil cooler that was a cast iron part that was actually also the lower radiator connection point. It likely was freeze cracked when the cylinder head also cracked from freezing.  They took it off and looped the oil fittings with copper tubing:

DSCN3362.thumb.JPG.c851980dedc70870d389652e3c08ec60.JPG

 

Here is the cracked head, sealed with orange RTV sealer.  The crack started under the head gasket, then across the head and went into number 5 spark plug hole. It took 7 years to find a good head, but had not put it on yet. I do have NOS head gasket and manifold gaskets.

DSCN3352.thumb.JPG.4b758b8524cd697da0f38709168dff54.JPG

 

The distributor and carb were ID'ed as from a 1938 Hudson, and the distributor was wrong rotation... so it actually retarded the timing at speed, instead of advancing.  I used free stuff I had here, years ago, to make it run better.  I had a 4 cylinder VW bug distributor that fit the hole, and also had a NOS Bosch Volvo 6 cylinder cap to fit it.  Then made a 6 cylinder point cam from a hex nut and modified the homemade driving shaft on the Hudson swap to fit the VW dist.

DSCN3353.thumb.JPG.52ce52316111c32ac62411b58166485b.JPG

 

 

I powerwashed the chassis the next day and it looks fine, and it does not need much painting touchup.   I just won't have much to update here until the engine shows up in early 2021....and I sure hope the shipping goes through ok.

 

 

.

Edited by F&J (see edit history)
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, alsancle said:

Those general jumbos or whatever they are don’t look right.

AJ, possibly a tire promo shot, as it appears to be taken in front of a tire shop.  What better than a snazzy ragtop updated with humongus www tires to promote your tire shop..

 

Frank, sorry for fumble on body series.  Nevertheless, one of the most attractive things on your car I think, is a great roofline.  This one is simillar, its interesting to look closely at differences you point out.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‚Äé10‚Äé/‚Äé25‚Äé/‚Äé2020 at 11:43 AM, John_Mereness said:

Have you thought about a Blue painted frame to match your fenders ? 

No, first reason is it must have been black. 2nd important reason is that it would? look like I was trying to pass it off as a higher end car? 3rd reason is most likely that many prewar guys will already think that the brake drums should be black instead of the lighter blue than the wheels were.....and also think that the fenders should be black. 4th reason, more work I don't need. :)

 

Sunday the engine was due for pickup in California.  Afternoon I went to check my laptop to see if the shipper or seller needed something answered.   Well, my internet was Out!...(and they won't be here till Wednesday to fix it),   So, I left a message on my son's cell to get him to sign into my email to check..... because I only had their phone numbers on my emails!   10 minutes later, I got a call from the transporter and he said all went perfect except there is no cell service there in the boonies, and the seller lost electricity due to PG&E shutting the wires off due to wind related fire danger. 

 

 

So...here I am broadcasting from the 32 ford sitting at the local McDonalds for free wifi!  The shipper told me that, and I was going to ask my son for free locations.  I'm pretty glad that I finally replied to the engine ad after 3 weeks, as I just assumed that even if my hunch was right about it being a 1932 motor instead of the ads 1931description, then it would be a nightmare to get it shipped across the country.

 

 

Progress: Son showed up Saturday to fix his Ford diesel bucket tractor.  After that repair(s) were done, he asked what I needed help with.  So he helped get the body into the spare bay, then used his tractor to get the chassis into the work bay....then he lifted up my 7' snowplow to attach it to my yard Jeep CJ5.    Yesterday I started to modify things to hook the Mustang E-brake cables to the stock Nash handbrake lever and cross bar.  That's it for now.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
On ‚Äé3‚Äé/‚Äé7‚Äé/‚Äé2021 at 12:37 PM, John_Mereness said:

Status report ?

I did not work in my own shop all winter. Was helping out at my Son's place. 

 

2 weeks ago, Bills Auto Works arrived in town to deliver the Nash engine from NorCal:

948832944_20210224_113302(800x600).jpg.43f53be82ae635b3ccc5f610542fa8fb.jpg259731730_20210224_113230(800x600).jpg.8c2af66a7677597148a97b5a7eedf413.jpg312000485_20210224_113214(800x600).jpg.d497cd2d868b3db67d660135b424b5f7.jpg

 

That was the first warm sunny day, but it went back to gray and cold until yesterday, so it's still sitting on my trailer.

We will have only 3 more sunny warm days coming, so I fiddled with the engine yesterday.

 

Back in October, I emailed the seller that I did not care if the motor was stuck from sitting in the barn for 20 years.  In hindsight, I should have said "don't try turning it by hand".  I always check to see it valves are stuck and always oil the cylinders first. He wrote back a day later and said he did turn it and it's not stuck...

 

See where this is going?..    I did remove the valve side covers and it's spotless inside, and every valve was free.  No rust signs after pulling the spark plugs and I used Marvel oil/acetone mix to pre-oil in there and also in the valve covers.

 

No flywheel, so I used a short pair of channel locks on the lower pulley and it did turn...but every 15 degrees there was a loud clack type knock, sounding like stuck valves snapping shut...but it was too deep to be valves.

 

Never heard an engine do that in the last 55 years of car work, so I had lunch and tried to think about this odd situation.  Later, I put my fingers on the distributor drive shaft that is inside the valve covers, and the clack was felt there.  Then I saw that the distributor rotor was not turning....

 

Only once in my life have I seen an oil pump gear get stuck from long term storage and have broken teeth.  That was on a 1918 Studebaker that a very elderly friend sold me.  He is kind of a bull, and he put a big bar on the stuck motor flywheel teeth which broke several cam followers due to stuck valves.  His son had to machine new ones for him, but he did not realize he also broke teeth on the stuck oil pump gear. 

 

 

I will try to get the engine off the skid today to pull the oil pan and pump.  There should be 2 gears in the lower part of the pump, one driven and one idler.  Then the camshaft will have teeth machined in the center, then the driving gear at the very top of the pump.  I will take pics of the damage.  I am hoping the idler is stuck, and teeth are broken on it or the lower internal drive gear.  (Then just use the pump from the original engine)

 

I doubt the cam teeth broke, I sure hope not, but the steady clack means something is flexing enough to jump over the remains of broken teeth.  (so that could mean the upper gear on the oil pump housing is not supported enough, and is jumping away from the camshaft teeth)

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

...Geez, sometimes I spot thinking errors when I re-read a post I had just made..

 

I don't have any factory exploded views of this engine to know for sure, but just now am re-thinking that the rotor drive shaft should still be turning if one of the 2 lower pumping gears are broken?  Right?

 

This will truly suck if I have to replace the camshaft. 

 

Place your bets as to what is really broken..

 

 

.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, F&J said:

I doubt the cam teeth broke, I sure hope not, but the steady clack means something is flexing enough to jump over the remains of broken teeth.  (so that could mean the upper gear on the oil pump housing is not supported enough, and is jumping away from the camshaft teeth)

Yup, the top drive gear of the pump was not supported enough, ...because.... the upper cast housing broke because the oil pump shaft was seized:

DSCN3419.thumb.JPG.7060c37b1abf06c8827fc98fe6e20b23.JPG

 

 

It broke the housing and bent the inner shaft away from the cam gear at the same time.  Then the small gear was rubbing on the bigger cam gear which is not damaged at all.  I have no idea why the shaft seized as it must have had detergent oil, and everything else does not have varnish?   One tap on the top of the shaft and it freed up easily?  It made a wear spot on mainly one tooth of the small gear:

DSCN3422.thumb.JPG.374b387770d91c7a2795dc660aac9738.JPG

 

 

 

I learned a lot about what was done on this rebuilt engine:  The crank is stamped 010 by the engine guy, but for the first time ever, I saw he also stamped in his first and last name and 9-15-82.   Very unusual first and last name, and a web search shows just one hit, his obituary from 2014 in Dallas, Texas.  He was age 40 when he rebuilt this, so he was likely at the top of his game then. 

 

I had known the full history of that Great Race Nash car.  It was sold new in 1932 to a guy in Texas to use on his honeymoon.  He kept it for around 50 years, then was sold to a local guy who restored it.  Then it sold to the Oregon race guy.

 

So, I now know that the Great Race owner did not have the engine rebuilt, it was the second owner in Texas.  I had hoped it was done by the race car owner, as he would have souped it up with a performance type cam regrind, bigger pistons, etc..

 

Looking at the aluminum rods and pistons, they looked brand new, I was hoping for an overbore to gain some HP as it is only 70 HP stock.:

DSCN3415.thumb.JPG.dbba7e62276df932b5a71f99861a2747.JPG

Closer look at the finish of the aluminum connecting rods, they show same texture as being glass bead blasting. Rod caps are steel.

 

So I used my vintage bore gauge that is laying on it's wooded box below pic.  It's still stock bore at 3.125".  Closer look a piston finish, I think these are bead blasted too, not new;

DSCN3420.thumb.JPG.a69c02f47b9d50ab9d66bc6b147a04fa.JPG

 

Ok, I will go to my grave insisting that these old cars with 4:73 gears get hurt from over revving by owners thinking they can run at the higher speeds needed in modern times.  See the below evidence of centrifugal forces from high rpms, when the piston rod switches directions at bottom of each stroke:

DSCN3418.thumb.JPG.4616b55dfccacdb2ce342e38db4317f2.JPG

above, safety wire missing completely on 2 rods. I will use cotter pins on all rods instead of the wire.

 

below, half of another wire is missing:

DSCN3417.thumb.JPG.9d7c96e8bc7a5509de7de5362be6000c.JPG

 

 

Only one wire was in the pan, but found more that somehow got sucked through the very small slot in the oil pickup cover, but then trapped by the fine screen :

DSCN3421.thumb.JPG.d7365a451e4352142b5e7a1a1bacf9cf.JPG

 

Above; just think of how much suction and inflow force is needed to do that.  It happens from the oil pump running way fast from driving these cars too damn fast. 

 

That's why I tossed the 32 Nash 4:73 differential in the scrap pile, as I have no desire to over-rev an old car, and also not be able to enjoy it at normal modern secondary road speeds.  It now has a 3:80,... I can't go 3:50 for 2 reasons: One is that any car with those high number axle ratios, also had 1st and reverse gears geared way up to compensate for the rear gears.  If you go to low of a number on the rear end ratio, it will feel like taking off in 2nd, as well as being way too fast in reverse.  2nd reason is this is very low power engine, so too low of a rear ratio number, and it will die on the slightest hills. End of rant :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I think it's a blessing this engine ended up with someone who actually knows engines. Most would have been completely stumped...and a broken oil pump is still a lot better than a wrecked cam shaft. Good work Frank!

Edited by JV Puleo (see edit history)
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as long as the cam gear survived then you can work around the oil pump.  

 

There was a recently a 1930's Cadillac V-12 for sale on ebay - I happened to stop in one day when the owners son had the car chained to his tractor and was dragging it around the yard - yes, the stuck engine broke free, but and what damage.  End result: I was tempted as price was not overly high, though on the flip side of the coin I equally would not have touched the car with a 100 foot pole after seeing that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two days of torment and frustration..  During the winter, trying to get back into working on the Nash, I took the driver side front spring out to rebuild the spring bushings, like I had done to the rear springs years ago.  This requires making aluminum adapters to use the modern 1972 Chrysler rubber bushings that I ordered.  The Net showed those were supposed to be 1.5" OD with 5/8' bore.  The were 1", so I had to go get a piece of new 1.5" aluminum roundstock at the scrap recycle place.  Well, I looked on and off for 2 days in the winter, and misplaced that stuff I bought years ago.  By the time I found the leftover piece, I just lost interest in making all the adapters.

 

So yesterday I started making the adapters so I can get the spring back in, then finally do the engine swap.  Not a hard job, just takes time on the lathe:

DSCN3443.thumb.JPG.48c02c924240a51c7172fc9ba84953ad.JPGDSCN3444.thumb.JPG.9e11597455846ffc76f70b5000c28312.JPG

 

 

 

The front springs have the moving shackles on the front:

DSCN3446.thumb.JPG.e31a17b0dbddd382bb4de8f6d633865b.JPG

Above:  The bore in the upper casting was rust scaled, and after cleaning it out with die grinder, the upper adapters were too loose. :(   Sooo I had to find/modify a coarse knurling tool to make them fit tighter.  The upper adapters are not 2" long like the lower one in the spring eye.  The upper casting has a wall inside, so I had to make two adapters at 1 inch long, one goes in from the backside.  So, trying to knurl a short length in a lathe chuck was a pain, doing it from both sides.

 

But in the pic above, I totally missed the bad shackle angle!  There is no body/feder/hood/radiator weight to have the shackle that far extended. By late in the day, fighting to get the axle to fit back on the centerpin of the spring, I knew something was way wrong!  Time to sleep on it...

 

 

 

 

This morning I removed the U bolts holding the right side spring onto the axle because I was hoping something had bumped/twisted that spring where it's clamped to the axle. No, it did not help.  So I lowered the entire axle and let both springs hang free. Well, the driver side shackle was still rammed too far forward. WTH...

 

 

Here is a dumb, ignorant, stupid, jackass design feature that appeared on some circa 1932 cars on the driver side-only front spring:

DSCN3450.thumb.JPG.b9a5228dbb9963048c1912195ea83d47.JPG

It's supposed to absorb road shocks when the drivers side front tire hits a pot hole. I know my former 32 Ply conv had something like this.  Somewhere in my travels an older car guy said these could make the main spring leaf snap. My Nash spring was broken about 1 foot forward of this.  Look at the angle!...it's too far forward which is causing the bad shackle angle at the front,..... so I thought maybe 2 of the 4 coil springs were deformed/squished too flat....

 

 

look at this nonsense ..

DSCN3456.thumb.JPG.7054c8b6179356b9bf5d3ee501a24426.JPG

The four sprigs seem to be the same length, so I don't know what is wrong.  They used four  1" long pieces of freaking cork stuffed into smaller holes in the upper frame bracket shown below. What the H is the cork supposed to do?

DSCN3460.thumb.JPG.11dba12b09603f958f0699e47e909d03.JPG

Maybe they thought the cork would act like a bumper? IDK

 

 

As I can't figure out why the angle of the "sprung" mount is wrong, I want to do away with the silly springs. But whatever I do needs to be adjustable during set up, so I can measure from some rear point on each side of the chassis, then up to the center pin of each front spring....or else the axle won't be a perfect 90 degrees to the frame.  I first thought about machining solid spacers, but I'd have no way of knowing how much longer the fronts would need to be, to correct the angle ..

 

So I am thinking about something like this below, a bolt and nut, with the bolt head facing up into each spring pocket, then the nut pushing down on the swiveling part.  The extra threads would fit down though the holes where the spring keepers are now peened in the 2nd pic down:

DSCN3461.thumb.JPG.38ea6f21a286e059ce3900567f0a26ab.JPGDSCN3458.thumb.JPG.9e9af0ddd08a37eefb6dbb62fab7bd6a.JPG

 

 

 

 

This whole system is a pain:  Both front springs are different!  One has the rear bushing eyelet facing up, the other side faces down!  That meant the passenger side frame bracket is shorter! Below pic shows passenger side with upturned eyelet.  The distance of the center of the bushing bolt is closer to the bottom of frame than the driver side.

DSCN3455.thumb.JPG.02a8c0d35bcbee2e4673c79f67f956a4.JPG

 

So, if I wanted to build a normal system, I'd need another right side front main spring leaf, and that shorter frame bracket, also from the right side. In 12 years, I have never found anyone with a spare 1932 six 2nd series chassis for parts.

 

I gotta do something...it just won't track correctly down the road the way it is now.  It will crabwalk going down the road.

 

 

Oh, one more dumb thing I saw: It had caster adjusting shims between the axle and springs...placed backwards to give negative caster. Geez, this car must have been crap to drive, wandering all over. They maybe went negative caster to help lessen the steering effort because the old trashed Ross steering box was binding so bad. 

 

Yes I'm in a crap mood....haven't felt too good in 3 weeks.  Ahhh the golden years..

 

 

 

it's finally supposed to get warmer and sunny by this weekend, and stay that way.  I hope that will help. I fought so many battles with this car, I can't give up now.  I hope I don't..

 

 

.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Late in the day, I am this far:  I drilled out those peened pins, after knocking the 4 pins, the swing part now has 1/2" holes which is just what I needed for the 1/2" bolts.

DSCN3462.thumb.JPG.68fbfcb89073691fde2faa79f84b6e8d.JPG

 

 

Lucky to have free bolts and oversized nuts here in stock, so here is the way it will be.  Just roughly adjusted, and I don't know why the swing bracket is so tilted... yet.  I need a helper to know when the front axle is 90 degrees to the chassis, so that tilt may change.

DSCN3463.thumb.JPG.e5a64cbacd9acfc1218123137b11f8ce.JPG

The bolts cannot slip out; the heads fit into pockets up top, and the tails of the bolts stick into the 1/2" holes in the swing bracket.

 

The R and L front shackle angles look roughly the same now, but I need a helper to run a tape measure to some common point further back on the frame sides, to the center pin bolt on each front spring pack.  Then adjust the bolts until both sides are exactly the same.

 

 

I may feed Loctite into the threads after it's adjusted, or just tack weld each nut to the bolt threads.  It will never need re-adjusting, and the swing plate will still be removable, as well as being able to remove the bolts (if there was a future reason to do that)

 

Edited by F&J (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s called a kick shackle. They are on many expensive cars. They work fine. The negative castor was to prevent death wobble and is common. Properly adjusted the kick shackle works fine. Hundreds of thousands of cars were built with them, and your steering geometry is designed to have it. Removing it will cause a very high shock load into the steering box.....not a good idea.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, edinmass said:

It’s called a kick shackle. They are on many expensive cars

 

7 hours ago, mikewest said:

Ive owned  2 - 1932 Auburns , both had a kick shackle

What I'd like to know is:   if these cars you both mentioned have conventional shackles at the front of both leaf springs (by the bumper)

 

I just can't recall if the 32 Ply had shackles up front on each spring, or just a conventional pivot bolts?... (meaning if the passenger spring had the conventional shackle at the rear of the spring)? 

 

I just can't see how a leaf spring with shackles at both ends, can keep that side of the axle where it needs to stay?

 

The issue on my Nash; the drivers side spring was too far forward.  I'm led to believe that, because that front shackle was already extended/angled too far forward.    So, if the spring did have the full weight of the body and all other parts, it seems that the front shackle would then be hyperextended/bottomed out?

 

In hindsight, I should have first measured to both front springpack center bolt pins to a common point on the chassis, to verify that the driver spring was really too far forward.  I will get that measured today. 

 

 

 

BTW, Caster discussions and theory, including death wobble can go really deep :)  ....Most car people have never studied what is called "caster trail", it's effects,  or even know what that term means.  The late Dick Spadaro was the best teacher I ever knew of on "I beam" front ends, bar none.  I sure miss his writings on forums.

 

..anyways, some positive caster is needed to prevent the car from wandering on a straight road.  It also allows the steering to center itself after making a turn.  It also provides "road feel". Here is a very short Youtube video that shows an ultralight aircraft on the taxi runway.  He shows that these aircrafts are "ground steered" on the runway with foot pegs.  He gives a excellent demonstration of how the positive caster allows the aircraft to always want to stay straight, and how the steering returns by itself:

 

 

- If you have a heavy non-power steering car, you'd need a lesser amount of positive caster so that it does not require excessive force on the steering wheel when turning, especially at low speeds or parking. 

 

-too much positive caster can induce death wobble, but it would take me a lot of typing to explain exactly why. Negative caster can also induce death wobble...you may have had a shopping cart with one front wheel go into a wobble.  They have negative caster, and if there is not enough weight/traction/grip on one of the front wheels to dampen the wobble, it will start to wobble :)

 

 

 

Here is a copy/paste from a small section of a very good web page on front ends:

  • Caster assists in the self-centering action of the steering
  • Caster¬†is not¬†a tyre wearing angle
  • Excessive variation side to side means the vehicle will pull to the side of least positive caster
  • Reducing caster trail prevents low-speed shimmy
  • Increased caster improves vehicle stability and steering ‚Äėfeel‚Äô

 

 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

F&J, I understand you post on caster. Having owned a modern and antique car repair shop, I have aligned countless vehicles. On pre war solid axel cars, over fifty years of actual in garage and on road experience, I have learned that while everything is a partial compromise, setting a car up with one degree negative is the best solution. We drive our cars probably ten to twenty times more than the average owner. I did a 140 mile drive for lunch yesterday in a V-16 Cadillac. Interstate, divided highway, and back roads. I don‚Äôt find the negative castor in a heavy Cadillac causes any difficulties steering, and the safety of the setting that literally eliminates death wobble is the best practical solution in setting up the alignment. I usually run 45 pounds in the front, and 40 in the rear. The years of experience also has taught me to keep things stock. It‚Äôs hard to improve on a factory set up. With the help of a friend we just recently made a new set of springs for a Model J. They weren‚Äôt just a ‚Äúbest guess copy‚ÄĚ but an actual attempt to duplicate what they were when new. The springs arrived yesterday. Rears are 90 pounds each, and the fronts are 58. Looking forward to improving the ride height and proper ride on the car after it sat in a barn for well over 60 years. I plan on Installing¬†them the last week of the month and will report back on if we were successful. ūüĎć

Edited by edinmass (see edit history)
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, edinmass said:

I have learned that while everything is a partial compromise

Agree on forced to compromise. 

 

On the hamb hotrod site, many builders of solid axle modified cars just follow the old wives tales passed along forever as far as caster.  Most set it to 7 degrees positive, but they never consider so many things that don't work well with 7.   Meaning they don't think about how much weight is on the front; either lightweight engine or super heavy big engines.  They also don't think about the steering ratio differences between fast ratio vs. slow ratio boxes. Also front tire size, bias vs. radials, front wheel offset, etc. 

 

I only have 2 registered vehicles, both solid axle; a 1966 4wd truck and 1932 Ford traditional hotrod.  The Ford is used way more.  It has a super heavy 1955 Olds engine, and mistake or not, I used a early 1950s Ross box with a super fast ratio.  It's only 2.5 turns on the steering wheel from lock to lock.  6:70x15 front bias tires.  Due to the fast ratio, I was forced to go with very low positive caster to be able to steer it during parking. 

 

When I finally got the car on the road, I had tire pressure at 30 front and 26 rear and the car was so touchy/twitchy... just like a tiny go cart with a 6" steering wheel!  It was almost un-drivable until I dropped the front pressure to 20.  That took away most of the sensitivity and also gave better road feel.  (but it is still very light at road speeds, just like power steering)

 

When it was first put¬†on the road, my son took it up to Spencer, Mass airport vintage drag race meet, and when he got back he said it was fine, and said¬†"you need to just relax and get used to it" (meaning the fast¬†ratio).¬†¬†As it was a fresh build with no test miles on it, I told him to stay off the Highways.¬† His¬†friend finally admitted that they took the Highway all the way home, and my son was in the¬†left lane running 80-plus!¬†¬† ūüėĪ¬† ¬†I recall the caster is set¬†around 1.5+ or so.¬† I was going to try 2.5+ later on, but you need to piecut the front wishbone at the yokes to reset caster....Then weld them up to try it.¬† I just think it will steer too hard when parking as I have very little arm strength now.

 

 

 

13 hours ago, edinmass said:

It’s called a kick shackle. They are on many expensive cars.

 

Ed, is there any chance you have a local car with a kick shackle to look at?  I'd really like to know if it has normal shackles at the front of each front spring, or, does it have just a single pivot bolt at the front of each front spring. 

 

I can easily put my kick shackle back to stock, but I can't unless I can get the drivers side spring to not be too far forward.  It was not right, and I don't yet know why. Heading out to do some measuring now.

 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, edinmass said:

I’m in Florida, are you down here or up in Mass? 

Neither :) I'm in east central Connecticut,

 

I can't think of anyone around here that has a kick shackle car that could answer my question.  I don't need to see one in person if that's what you mean. 

 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is what you are looking for

Here's the kick shackle set up on a 32 Auburn. Front spring rear shackles are the same left and right.  There is only one front spring part number listed so presumably they are the same length .

The Auburn design locates the 'kick' springs up inside the frame channel They fit above the vertical bolt.

It's design also effectively locates the front spring eye at the same position;  left and right.

 

 

P1020794.thumb.JPG.d899146addca08dc5412fc0805d7c119.JPGP1020795.thumb.JPG.5258e9ad2f0e5079a7479c1d92ce1dd6.JPG

 

 

Do your springs measure the same length  left and right?. Do they have the same arch when off the car ( they should be pretty close i would think.)

Do you have a parts book for the Nash and does it list the same spring left and right? All of the rear mount hardware you show looks stock but a parts book could confirm. With the Nash design,all things being equal, the front leaf springs should be different part numbers given the different eye orientation.

Was the cork for squeak control ?Doesn't seem like it would last long in that application if it was!

Could the length issue  be that someone has installed the wrong spring at some point?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's some more examples ( Cadillac and Dodge)  from  a discussion on Roger's amazing modelling thread. It's toward the bottom of the page.

https://forums.aaca.org/topic/145354-construction-of-a-continental-mark-ii-model-scale-112/page/68/

Looks like most manufacturers modified the left front in some fashion. Nash had to be different I guess!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice the above kick shackle is adjusted correctly, but minus three points for the¬†modern grease fittings.ūüĎć

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello frank

is there a chance that the guy that worked on the car prior to your purchase had the frt end apart and ultimately reversed the spring,     Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just came up from the shop and was shocked to see how many of you have posted pics to help me out, as well as questions asked about the Nash parts.

 

I will try to cover all of that, but I've been up since 2:30 AM ūüėĪ, so I might not make things clear enough...or miss some questions.

7 hours ago, bradsan said:

Do your springs measure the same length  left and right?.NO

Do they have the same arch when off the car ( they should be pretty close i would think.) YES

Do you have a parts book for the Nash and does it list the same spring left and right? All of the rear mount hardware you show looks stock but a parts book could confirm. With the Nash design,all things being equal, the front leaf springs should be different part numbers given the different eye orientation.YES, Different

Was the cork for squeak control ?Doesn't seem like it would last long in that application if it was!

 

7 hours ago, bradsan said:

Could the length issue  be that someone has installed the wrong spring at some point?

I don't know for sure.  But years ago, I did buy a 1932 Six First Series driver main leaf and it was not close to being correct

7 hours ago, bradsan said:

 

 

 

 

Starting with the question about the cork parts:  Pic below shows one spring, one steel retainer that also acts like a stop, then the cork.  The cork is definitely not home made, but 90 years old, it may have shrunk in length?  See below there is a gap between the retainer and the cork, but when the Kick assembly is put together, all 4 springs were pre-loaded/compressed. So I can't tell if the cork fit tight to the steel retainer when new in 1932, or if there was an air gap to allow easier movement? 

DSCN3464.thumb.JPG.d44033f5fa31e90fb88b0b81d3c2b900.JPG

 

 

I got lucky at Noon as a very experienced 49 year old guy stopped by.  He worked for Authier Restorations in Pomfret CT before the owner closed up to retire.  He also builds hotrods, restomodded prewars, and stock prewars.  I went though everything I could think of to get second opinions on what is wrong and what to do.  He agreed that the front shackle angle up by the bumper should match the identical one on the passenger side, and agreed that if I left it that way, the axle could not be 90 degrees to the chassis.

 

I also asked him that if the entire body and all parts were back on, could that shackle move back to where the other side is.  I already knew it couldn't and he agreed, and he said the shackle would likely get even more of an angle and then bottom out.

 

So I went through all the outdoor pics from last June when I'd park it outside every day to gain some inspiration to work on it.  Just one pic shows that the drivers side shackle was angled way too forward when I enlarged this small pic by 300%:

DSCN3069.thumb.JPG.fb8383615d773f666f8ed6f340aeb612.JPG

 

 

This afternoon, I finished making the last bushing adapters and then replaced the passenger side shackle bushings. I had to do that before trying to accurately measure everything to find what is wrong. 

 

Here's where I may lose you all, as you aren't here to see what I did for testing/adjusting.   I measured from the center pin of each front spring, back to a known common point on the chassis (almost half way back).  When I adjusted the new bolts in the kick to make both R/L side measurements equal, then I used a machinist's angle finder on both front shackles. They are now within 1.25 degrees of each other, and before it was way out in left field.

 

I also measured from the center pins up to the front shackle bolts, and they are within 1/16" of being equal.

 

Then I knew that the rear half of the driver main leaf is too long, and using the angle finder best I could on the now-crooked Kick Shackle, the spring is too long by about 7/16" on the back half of the main leaf

 

Then I looked for any signs that the driver side main leaf was replaced/remade back 80 years ago, if it broke at some point.  If it was a spring-shop built leaf, there simply has to be a slight difference in thickness and in width.  Both main leafs are 2.017" wide exactly, and thickness of both are .277".  Then I looked at the riveted spring pack clamps that have a lengthwise bolt to tighten them.  Both pairs of spring clamp brackets match perfectly, and have same size of rivet heads.  I have to assume they are both original main leafs, but why is the driver side too long? Makes no sense to me.  I'm stumped.

 

One positive thing is:  Now that both front shackles are nearly the same angle, when I lowered the springs back down onto the axle, I did not have to "fight" to get the center pins to drop into the holes in the axle.  2 days ago when the spring was too far forward, I had to struggle to get the pin lined up on drivers side.  So I know that the front half of the driver spring is now in the right place, and the axle is now 90 degrees to the chassis.

 

 

I can't come up with an explanation of what is going on. 

 

. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Up at 4AM today and I've been studying all of the pics and info you all had sent yesterday.  Thanks to all of you that took the time to share.

 

In these pics and the link to Roger Zimmermann's thread, it seems that Nash is the only brand that placed the kick at the rear of the spring.  There may be other brands, but they have not been mentioned so far.

 

Being that I've always been interested in studying front end geometry, it now seems apparent that the kick system was aimed primarily at preventing Death Wobble.   Here are some members quotes from that link to Rogers thread:

 

- My 1932 Dodge Brothers has a device on the driver's side front spring mount that supposedly dampened the steering.

 

-In the Cadillac world, this arrangement was called "steering modulator", with following explanation: The steering modulator is designed to prevent shimmy and steering wheel whip. 

 

-Auburn had the same device on their  1932-33 models  and even issued a factory service bulletin to retrofit 1931 models for owners who were complaining of front end shimmy .

Their part was called a 'kick shackle' Seems like a common early 30's solution to solid front axle steering geometry issues. The adoption of Independent front suspension seems to have cured the problem until the death wobble appeared in 90's Jeep and Dodge products!

 

 

 

Some of you may have never been in a car that went into a true death wobble; it's not really just a simple shimmy, it is extremely violent and will terrify you when you have your first event. Trust me on that !   (It can even cause damage to the car in severe cases or repetitive events).

 

I've studied everything I could find on death wobble for decades, and I don't think there will ever be a simple diagnostic "check list" of how to cure it on a car that is plagued by this situation.  I now believe the engineers were mostly experimenting when they made these different kick systems.

 

In the "Traditional" Hotrod world, most purists will say that adding a hydraulic steering damper like VW did way back around 1960, "is not curing the cause", but rather "putting a band aid on the problem".   I am not concerned that my Nash would get death wobble if I disable the kick shackle, as I am 100% confident on my own abilities that I can set this front end up so it will never get the death wobble.  I've already reversed the caster shims, but have not set the car on the alignment tables yet to accurately check the caster, but I will.  I can quickly estimate caster by using the machinist angle finder in the meanwhile.  I'm sorry that I simply disagree that negative caster is what is needed, but I'd have to type 10,000 words to explain why. 

 

 

But despite this new post...I am still totally baffled this morning on why it seems that my spring is the wrong length to be able to use the stock kick shackle.  Trust me, I would keep the kick shackle if I can, but I first need to figure out where the error is, for 100% sure, before doing anything.

 

I can't work today as I was asked to do appraisals for a "flipper" at a large estate collection; ..no cars, it's mostly all antique car mechanical parts and tools.  (I hope to find an adjustable king pin reamer for my Nash if I'm lucky)

 

 

.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‚Äé3‚Äé/‚Äé21‚Äé/‚Äé2021 at 6:53 AM, F&J said:

I was asked to do appraisals for a "flipper" at a large estate collection; ..mechanical parts and tools.  (I hope to find an adjustable king pin reamer for my Nash if I'm lucky)

I guess I got lucky, as the guy who asked me to go ID parts for him at the estate, was the one who found just one old adjustable king pin reamer there.

 

Lucky is a relative term in this case, because this old reamer must have been used every day in a repair shop back in the king pin days.  I can't say I've ever seen that much wear on reamer blades before.  The seller trusted me when I said it's really worn out, and I almost did not take it after the $5 price was set.  

 

However, why not work on a worn out car with worn out tools.  What I mean is, I'm on a tight fixed income and I had already searched ebay, etc,  for a "true" king pin reamer to handle the diameter I need.  (.863).   Most all of the reamers that were shown in searches, were not true king pin reamers because they were not long enough on the bottom, and didn't have the pilot sleeve that you must have to keep the tool centered down through both spindle bushings.  I only saw a couple that might work, but they were $150 or so with shipping, and higher.  Plus, I will never use it again.

 

DSCN3465.thumb.JPG.d8aca39f197c7544ded7e14e57f0f56d.JPG

Above, the pilot sleeve at top right.  The bushing is one of the 4 from the NOS complete king pin kit that NB Pease put together for me a few years ago. The pilot sleeve is not the correct one for this size of reamer.  I can tell that, because the long taper must be able to fit into a uncut bushing, and it's too big.  It may have once been in a complete set of reamers, and somebody put the wrong one on from the next size up reamer.

 

So, I will cut that long taper down to a smaller starting diameter, maintaining the same angle.  Lucky again, as my old lathe has the optional taper attachment.  I've never used it before, except one day when I was learning how to make it work.

 

That re-tapering will go fast, but then I have to deal with the wear on the upper one-third of the high ends of the seven ramped/angled blades.  The lower 2/3rds of each blade has "acceptable" wear .  It will never cut properly like that, it will screech and squawk on brass, and will be binding as I'd try to go deeper,.... and also not giving a smooth finish.    

 

These upper tips are worn more, because that area gets the most wear as the slightly tapered reamer is doing a gradual up-sizing as it finally goes all the way through a bushing.  I guess it is the part of the blade that works the hardest, as it is the "finish size" at the very tip.  That tip starts to wear a bit on each bushing set you do, so then the tip looses it's cutting ability.   Then you have to push harder as the wear gradually starts to migrate further and further down each blade, over long term everyday use.  I'm sure J.V. Puleo understands what the heck I'm trying to say :)

 

 

I should instead just finish putting the front spring U-bolts on so I can move the chassis enough to make room for the engine swap.  But... I am wanting to know if the reamer can be made good enough for just 4 bushings.  I have a idea on how to eliminate the worn tips of the blades, I hope it works.

 

 

BTW, going to an estate sale once in a while, reminds us seniors that we really need to get going and finish the dang cars.  You know what I mean....

.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a set of Critchley Pilot reamers so I'm pretty sure I have the one you need. If you get stuck send me a PM and I'll visit with them. You aren't too far away and it will be a good excuse to take the day off.

 

jp

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JV Puleo said:

I have a set of Critchley Pilot reamers so I'm pretty sure I have the one you need. If you get stuck send me a PM and I'll visit with them. You aren't too far away and it will be a good excuse to take the day off.

 

jp

Thanks for the offer Joe.   I took my own advice today and cleaned up this part of the workbay to make room for the engine crane.  I put the front end back together to move the car back, and then spent an hour getting the old engine ready to be lifted out, and already have the lifting strap on it.

 

My son has had my engine crane in the back of his truck since 2 weekends ago, so I just called him at work and he will stop by in an hour on his way home.  He will have his car pool buddy too, so these two big boys will help, and it will be out fast.   Then drain oil after they leave, so that I can drop the pan down in the AM and salvage the good oil pump.

 

Nice weather for a change, so I actually want to work on the car again; feeling a bit better too, maybe from working.

DSCN3467.thumb.JPG.d7af6a3f6a8e2eae2b3543de0808fff1.JPG

 

.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2021 at 10:44 AM, F&J said:

I guess I got lucky, as the guy who asked me to go ID parts for him at the estate, was the one who found just one old adjustable king pin reamer there.

 

Lucky is a relative term in this case, because this old reamer must have been used every day in a repair shop back in the king pin days.  I can't say I've ever seen that much wear on reamer blades before.  The seller trusted me when I said it's really worn out, and I almost did not take it after the $5 price was set.  

 

However, why not work on a worn out car with worn out tools.  What I mean is, I'm on a tight fixed income and I had already searched ebay, etc,  for a "true" king pin reamer to handle the diameter I need.  (.863).   Most all of the reamers that were shown in searches, were not true king pin reamers because they were not long enough on the bottom, and didn't have the pilot sleeve that you must have to keep the tool centered down through both spindle bushings.  I only saw a couple that might work, but they were $150 or so with shipping, and higher.  Plus, I will never use it again.

 

DSCN3465.thumb.JPG.d8aca39f197c7544ded7e14e57f0f56d.JPG

Above, the pilot sleeve at top right.  The bushing is one of the 4 from the NOS complete king pin kit that NB Pease put together for me a few years ago. The pilot sleeve is not the correct one for this size of reamer.  I can tell that, because the long taper must be able to fit into a uncut bushing, and it's too big.  It may have once been in a complete set of reamers, and somebody put the wrong one on from the next size up reamer.

 

So, I will cut that long taper down to a smaller starting diameter, maintaining the same angle.  Lucky again, as my old lathe has the optional taper attachment.  I've never used it before, except one day when I was learning how to make it work.

 

That re-tapering will go fast, but then I have to deal with the wear on the upper one-third of the high ends of the seven ramped/angled blades.  The lower 2/3rds of each blade has "acceptable" wear .  It will never cut properly like that, it will screech and squawk on brass, and will be binding as I'd try to go deeper,.... and also not giving a smooth finish.    

 

These upper tips are worn more, because that area gets the most wear as the slightly tapered reamer is doing a gradual up-sizing as it finally goes all the way through a bushing.  I guess it is the part of the blade that works the hardest, as it is the "finish size" at the very tip.  That tip starts to wear a bit on each bushing set you do, so then the tip looses it's cutting ability.   Then you have to push harder as the wear gradually starts to migrate further and further down each blade, over long term everyday use.  I'm sure J.V. Puleo understands what the heck I'm trying to say :)

 

 

I should instead just finish putting the front spring U-bolts on so I can move the chassis enough to make room for the engine swap.  But... I am wanting to know if the reamer can be made good enough for just 4 bushings.  I have a idea on how to eliminate the worn tips of the blades, I hope it works.

 

 

BTW, going to an estate sale once in a while, reminds us seniors that we really need to get going and finish the dang cars.  You know what I mean....

.

 

New blades for these reamers are readily available in Australia, so should be easily sourced in the US. They tend to be standard sizes across brands. Even the Chinese replacement blades fit straight into good Patience and Nicholson reamers. They might cost you more than $5.00, though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Bush Mechanic said:

 

New blades for these reamers are readily available in Australia, so should be easily sourced in the US. They tend to be standard sizes across brands. Even the Chinese replacement blades fit straight into good Patience and Nicholson reamers. They might cost you more than $5.00, though.

I did spend time searching for blades, but all I found were cylindrical things sold as 3 in a set.  I gave up.

 

 

Another mystery;  The oil pumps are different in the styles of relief valves, and more importantly, the size if he output line. (the round screen ass'y is not installed on the right side pump, I took I off last week)

DSCN3468.thumb.JPG.d272f19284c6d9a37e5b0dbd55f06578.JPGDSCN3469.thumb.JPG.82aa5cad47a596388295c045dcd5c215.JPG

 

Above, the pump on the left is out of the old motor from my car, the one on right is from the engine from California.    Anybody willing to give suggestions on what to do?  The output size on the old pump is incredibly small to feed the piping system in below pic.  Both engines have the same pipe design.

 

 

The left pump is an earlier engine, the right one with increased size is later design when going by the riveted aluminum tags on both engines. 

 

DSCN3476.thumb.JPG.ea2137631df2a1e7c34cb4446d04222b.JPG

The yellow circle is where the oil enters the engine, that comes out of the pump.  The blue circle is the "in and out" that went to the external oil cooler.  Yellow arrow, somebody torched a hole in the baffle to clean it out.

 

one more question is; does that big rectangular 90 degree fitting appear to be of modern design?  I have never seen this style on a car of this age, but maybe it dates to then?

 

The first question is, should I drill/tap the small 1/8NPT outlet to 1/4" NPT?  The cast boss on the 1/8 pump is too small to go with drill/tap of 3/8NPT.

 

 

Edited by F&J (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would enlarge the threaded hole if there is room.

I've never seen a "square" fitting like that on something old and I suspect it is not original to the engine.

 

How big is the boss on the old pump? I'm thinking that there might be a way to make or use something other than a pipe thread fitting. The taper and the depth on thread pipe fittings result in relatively small hole in the center. If you utilized the entire boss and a fitting with a fine, straight thread perhaps you could get very close to the ID of the 3/8 fitting. It also looks to me that there was a problem with the oiling and that this was the update to address it so I don't see how you can not try to copy it.

 

jp

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JV Puleo said:

If you utilized the entire boss and a fitting with a fine, straight thread perhaps you could get very close to the ID of the 3/8 fitting.

I did not think of using a straight threaded fitting, but I'm too tired right now to think about how a straight thread would seal to the pump casting.  I assume you mean that if the boss was big enough, you'd machine a flat sealing surface and then use a copper gasket?   The boss at that 1/8 fitting is way, way smaller than the boss on the broken pump from the "new engine".  I will see what I have here for fittings that are from my Dad's 1950s repair shop business.  Can't hurt to look at fitting styles to come up with ideas;

 

This is more undeniable proof that the car engineers designs were not always perfect.   Pics don't have the same shock value when being here in person and staring at that tiny fitting connected to such larger pipes and bigger fittings.  It just looks so home made....but the pump boss size was that way from day one.

 

I even wondered if there originally was a feed tube system that had all smaller lines, and then somebody way back then put a later large tubing setup on it.   However, I doubt there was a smaller system by looking at the internal fittings in pic below.  The engine was definitely fooled with long ago. 

DSCN3477.thumb.JPG.d58d8dd6189da66b8a9a3ad5517dd150.JPG

BTW, just noticed the Number 5 rod cap looks a bit rusty in the pic.  I need to check that out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Yes, a copper of fiber gasket - though I think copper would be better in this case. I'm pretty worthless at the end of the day - or, better said, I get my good ideas when I'm rested and I just don't have the stamina I had 30 years ago. I might have something as well...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...