1953 Roadmaster - severe engine knock

[Hans1965]

When I wrote this I already had the feeling for a moment I might not do justice to rocket scientists.

 

[1953mack]

On May 5, 2017 at 0:54 PM, Hans1965 said:

POST #79

Al . . . I have just learned that the 56 push rods are slightly shorter than the 53-55. But you are saying the 53-55 and 56 are the same size,  am I right? . . .

 

 

That is not a true statement. See my Post #56 posted two days ago. 

 

On May 3, 2017 at 10:33 PM, 1953mack said:

POST #56

Hans,

♦  Your 8.23" long push rods are not correct for your 1953 Buick V8 engine.

♦  According to your measurement, you already have shorter push rods (1956 Buick length?) than the OE 1953-1955 Buick V8 push rods (Group 0.426, Part #1343359) that are a nominal 8 3/8" (8.375") long.

 

 

Please edit your Post #79 correctly/accordingly.

 

Al Malachowski

BCA #8965

"500 Miles West of Flint"

[NTX5467]

I certainly understand the reason for the concern about the pushrod/lifter issue.  Obviously, whatever is in there needs to be a matched set as the dimension between the centerline of the camshaft and the tip of the rocker arm's contact with the pushrod end would probably be constant within the Nailhead V-8 family . . . unless there was a difference in "deck height" with increasing crankshaft stroke.

 

Bending a connecting rod (if that is the "rod" being mentioned relating to the retention of the connecting rod to the piston pin) would require quite a bit of force/obstruction. 

 

The OTHER issue not considered (from what I've read) is the "WHY" of the pushrod bending (other than "stuck valves"), in the first place.  The pushrod is the sacrificial part of the valve train, although it is very strong due to having to resist deformation from valve spring pressure.  My concern is more like valve-piston contact rather than "stuck valves".  The ONLY way to determine that is to remove the cylinder heads and look for impact marks on the piston crown.  When you get the pushrod issues rectified, there can still be bent valves to deal with.

 

With the heads removed and turned upside down on a workbench, you can use solvent to pour into the combustion chamber.  The valve springs will hold the valves against their seats.  IF there is no leakage into the ports, by the solvent/liquid, then no real issues there.  But this would be a good time to verify what was done with the valve springs and such (as old-tank mentioned earlier).  Plus verify if "hard seats" were installed (and any issues which they might be causing, as another poster mentioned).

 

A bent valve head will result in compression loss and make a rougher and less powerful-running engine, generally.  BUT they don't happen after the engine has been run as long as your engine must have run after the prior rebuild.

 

It also might be necessary to disassemble the cylinder heads to look for issues on the valve stems and valve guides, PLUS the valve stem oil seals that were used.  I would suspect a "stuck valve" would have a particular wear pattern/galling on the stem from lack of lubrication or wear marks from other issues on the affected cylinders.

 

Whether it's "rocket science" or "brain surgery", sub-optimal execution of procedures leads to bad outcomes.  As mentioned, it's more about (initially) taking your time and documenting how things were assembled when you take them apart AND keeping track of what was removed and where from.  ONE piece at a time.  When I changed the cam and lifters, with an intake manifold/carburetor upgrade, on one of my cars, it took me a while to get up the courage/confidence to do that.  Then I remembered a pictures of workers in an 1970s engine plant.  I suspected I was mentally competent to do the job they'd done (and I'd seen done by others, up close and personal) and had most of the needed tools to do it.  So, with those things, I began my new adventure.  I also had nearby mentors I could ask for advice/suggestions.  It's more about doing the correct things in the correct sequence than anything else.  In some respects, the only difference between me and those guys on the engine line were that they'd done it before (as many of my mentors had).  There were a few things to get sorted out, but it worked and kept working. 

 

There ARE a few more things to pay attention to on Buick Nailheads than on some other brand of engines, BUT most of them are documented in these forums over the past few years (i.e., rocker arm assembly to the cylinder head).  And they can be model-year specific, too!  "Critical thinking" during diagnosis and figuring out what happened and why is important.  BUT as another recent thread in here mentioned, only fixing what's wrong and none of the "while I'm here . . . " things is important.  In your case, you might need to get a little deeper than normal to get things fixed/corrected.

 

When it's all done and put back together, I'm hoping you'll be rewarded with smoothness and quietness and Buick power you should be getting.

 

Please keep us posted.

 

NTX5467

[NTX5467]

The issue of the engine now not turning can be problematic.  Were you hearing a piston breaking in that noise (being fractured by valve/piston contact) and the piston finally expanding enough to lock the engine down?  But that can only be determined, one way, by removing the cylinder heads and looking for damage.  Which, unfortunately, expands the "while I'm here . . . ." aspect a good bit.  If a failed piston is the case, then hopefully there are minor issues with the particular cylinder wall(s).

 

Just some thoughts . . .

NTX5467

[old-tank]

11 hours ago, 1953mack said:

 

On May 5, 2017 at 0:54 PM, Hans1965 said:

POST #79

Al . . . I have just learned that the 56 push rods are slightly shorter than the 53-55. But you are saying the 53-55 and 56 are the same size,  am I right? . . .

 

 

That is not a true statement. See my Post #56 posted two days earlier. 

 

On May 3, 2017 at 10:33 PM, 1953mack said:

POST #56

Hans,

♦  Your 8.23" long push rods are not correct for your 1953 Buick V8 engine.

♦  According to your measurement, you already have shorter push rods (1956 Buick length?) than the OE 1953-1955 Buick V8 push rods (Group 0.426, Part #1343359) that are a nominal 8 3/8" (8.375") long.

 

 

Please edit your Post #79 correctly/accordingly.

 

The shorter pushrods are correct for the installed 56 lifters....56 on the left; 53-55 on the right.

[Hans1965]

16 hours ago, 1953mack said:

Please edit your Post #79 correctly/accordingly

Hi Al,  I just did! Sorry that I have gotten it wrong. But your statement means it does not really make sense to order 56 parts. I would even need shorter push rods. No idea how to figure out how long. 

[Hans1965]

6 hours ago, NTX5467 said:

The OTHER issue not considered (from what I've read) is the "WHY" of the pushrod bending (other than "stuck valves"), in the first place.  The pushrod is the sacrificial part of the valve train, although it is very strong due to having to resist deformation from valve spring pressure.  My concern is more like valve-piston contact rather than "stuck valves".  The ONLY way to determine that is to remove the cylinder heads and look for impact marks on the piston crown.  When you get the pushrod issues rectified, there can still be bent valves to deal with.

..

When it's all done and put back together, I'm hoping you'll be rewarded with smoothness and quietness and Buick power you should be getting.

 

Please keep us posted.

 

NTX5467

Hi NTX5467, thanks for your long comment. That's exactly my worry. That the valves got some damage too. My hope is that I just change the push rods and everything will be fine. 

But now with Al telling me that I already have shorter than 53 push rods, possibly from 56 and they are as till too long - what can I do???

[NTX5467]

As the valve lifters and pushrods need to be a "matched set", then you might remove one of the valve lifters and measure its height dimension and see if anybody knows the model year it might be.  Once you have that information, you can be more confident of which pushrods are needed.  You'll need to check them all for straightness, the ones yo have now, if you've not already done that.

 

This should take care of the pushrod issue, but still has not really addressed why the engine locked up.  Unless there is some external reason (a flywheel bolt or similar, as mentioned earlier), that the engine will not turn, you'll still probably need to remove the heads for piston inspection.  Otherwise, you'll be removing the oil pan and looking up inside the cylinder bores with a strong light.  Pulling the heads is, to me, a better alternative.

 

What does the oil on the dipstick look like?  Normal or milky (contaminated with a non-motor oil liquid)?  Just curious.

 

Please keep us posted.

NTX5467

[avgwarhawk]

If I'm not mistaken Hans can spin the engine by hand at this juncture.  All but a few rods have some degree of bend.  See the video Hans posted of each rod being spun while still in position.  I can understand a rod or two bent but by and large all rods appear to have some degree of bend.  Odd since the engine has run OK from my understanding then this issue presented itself in fine fashion. 

[NTX5467]

When I did my last post, I didn't see Old-Tank's picture.  Visible difference would be the width of the recess on the lifter's outer housing, it appears.  Many times, when different parts are used, there is a visible difference so they might not get mixed on the assembly line (in this case, if some incorrect ones were delivered to the engine plant by mistake).  Visible differences, paint daubs, etc.  One reason to match new parts against what was in the engine when disassembled.

 

NTX5467

[Beemon]

Is there a possible difference in valve height that would change the geometry of the rocker arms? 

[1953mack]

Hans,

A comparison of what the overall assembled length . . . from the top tip of the push rod to the bottom edge of the valve lifter should be . . . versus what your parts measure . . . might give everybody a better idea of what you have.

 

♦  According to my calculations, using all nominal dimensions, here is what I came up with when I measured my OE 1953 Buick V8 parts. 1953-1955 Buick V8 push rods and valve lifters should be the same. 

           8.375”  (length of 1953-1955 push rod)

        -  0.375”  (length of 1953-1955 push rod that is recessed into the top of the 1953-1955 valve lifter)

        + 2.000”  (length of 1953-1955 valve lifter)

          10.000”  TOTAL overall assembled length

 

♦  If the 10” TOTAL is the same using a 1956 push rod with a 1956 valve lifter, here is what you should have. I do not have any 1956 parts to verify these dimensions.

          8.250”  (length of 1956 push rod)

        - 0.250”  (length of 1956 push rod that is recessed into the top of the 1956 valve lifter)

        +2.000”  (length of 1956 valve lifter)

         10.000”  TOTAL overall assembled length

 

♦  Using a combination of a 1953-1955 push rod with a 1956 valve lifter  =  10.125”

♦  Using a combination of a 1956 push rod with a 1953-1955 valve lifter  =    9.875”

 

Hans: can you verify the dimension that your push rod is recessed into the top of the valve lifter and what all your parts add up to?

Comments and corrections to be made are appreciated from all others too.

 

Al Malachowski

BCA #8965

"500 Miles West of Flint" 

[Hans1965]

Hi everybody, thanks a lot for your comments. I had a very long working day and no chance to drive to the garage, which is not close to my home. Will do tomorrow after work and check for the dimensions. Very interesting approach! Thank you! 

 

NTX - yes, avgwarhawk is right, with a bigger lever I was able to turn the engine by hand with no blocks, bad noise whatsoever. No idea at the moment why the starter is not working properly. 

 

Thanks everybody! 

[avgwarhawk]

If I was a betting man I would venture a guess that as many bent rods not opening valves as designed created a situation where several cylinders were compressing air with no means of escape. Or I'm completely out of my head from drinking too much Yuengling.

[Hans1965]

On Monday, May 08, 2017 at 2:09 PM, 1953mack said:

    - 8.375”  (length of 1953-1955 push rod)

    - 0.375”  (length of 1953-1955 push rod that is recessed into the top of the 1953-1955 valve lifter)

     + 2.000”  (length of 1953-1955 valve lifter)

     10.000”  TOTAL overall assembled length

It is more or less exactly like this. I just put it on paper (I guess I shall not pursue a grafic design career!) 

The 'hidden' part of the push rod is difficult to measure, tried a few times (between 0.371 and 0.385, average ca. 0.375), push rod is 8.38, overall 10 inches. Tried to measure the plateau inside the lifter, too, ca 0.256 inches.

[avgwarhawk]

Can you take a picture of the top of your lifter?  We need to see if it appears to look like Willies picture with a 56 on the left and a 53-55 lifter on the right.   Here is my thing, the engine was rebuilt.  The push rods you have are original.  The lifters more than likely replaced with the new cam(guessing new cam was installed Makes sense to me).  The lifters then possibly 1956.    

[Hans1965]

The lifter is difficult to do:

[Hans1965]

This is a close up of the cam:

[Hans1965]

Here is a push rod. The ends are not really round. 

[Hans1965]

Is it the normal procedure to replace the cam during an engine rebuilt?   Does mine look like a new one? 

[NTX5467]

Typically, the camshaft is re-used in an overhaul unless there are signs of a particular lobe having some wear issues, more than the other ones.

 

Perhaps it's the light or the oil film, but that cam looks pretty good.  What kind of wear is on the bottom of the valve lifter?

 

Thanks for the pictures!
 

NTX5467

[1953mack]

 Hans, another picture is needed.

 

OE 1953-1956 Buick V8 camshafts can be identified by looking at what Buick calls a machined LAND that is located just forward of the #3 (center) camshaft bearing journal and aft of camshaft lobe #8. Whether this machined area has no grooves, one groove, two grooves, and the width of spacing between grooves, will identify an OE camshaft’s year and whether it’s applicable to a Synchromesh or Dynaflow-equipped engine. There should also be a number just aft the same #3 bearing journal.

 

The attached picture below shows the OE identifiable camshaft information from my  Dynaflow-equipped 1953 Buick V8 engine.

 

 

Al Malachowski

BCA #8965

"500 Miles West of Flint"

Edited July 1, 2017 by 1953mack (see edit history)

[avgwarhawk]

I see some numbers here in the picture at the bottom.  Not sure if enough to identify the cam.

 

 

 

[Hans1965]

Thanks for the excellent picture of the camshaft! Just checked the number left of #3 bearing center on my car. Looks like

 

1345

B7

 

No 'GM'. 

 

Right of #3 is no groove area, just one ring. Please see the picture below. 

Seems to be an aftermarket cam, am I right?  

[Hans1965]

Thats the underside of the lifters. The two 'scars' on the one that belongs to the most bent rod is visible but can be hardly felt by hand, only on the surface. 

[avgwarhawk]

36 minutes ago, Hans1965 said:

Thats the underside of the lifters. The two 'scars' on the one that belongs to the most bent rod is visible but can be hardly felt by hand, only on the surface. 

 

Looked like mine when I had troubles.  The scar means it is probably not spinning in the bore.   

[KongaMan]

1 hour ago, Hans1965 said:

Thanks for the excellent picture of the camshaft! Just checked the number left of #3 bearing center on my car. Looks like

 

1345

B7

 

When I blow that picture up, it looks like it might be ?87.  That is, there may be a poorly cast letter/number before the B, and the B may be an 8.

 

BTW, check out this picture for a 1954:

 

Edited May 10, 2017 by KongaMan (see edit history)

[Hans1965]

32 minutes ago, KongaMan said:

 

When I blow that picture up, it looks like it might be ?87.  That is, there may be a poorly cast letter/number before the B, and the B may be an 8.

 

BTW, check out this picture for a 1954:

 

Yes, very much true! 

The 54 cam really looks very much like mine. Thank you!

Edited May 10, 2017 by Hans1965 (see edit history)

[NTX5467]

GREAT pictures and information!!

 

In order to induce "spinning" of the valve lifter, there is a very small slope on the cam lobe, side to side, combined with a slight "crown" on the bottom (lobe contact area) of the lifter body.  The "spinning" is a way to equalize wear on the bottom of the valve lifter.  This is on almost all automotive "flat tappet" cams, but not "roller" camshafts/lifters.

 

NTX5467

[Hans1965]

Thanks, I did not know this.

 

To be honest, I am back to square one. 

I seem to have a 54 cam and 53 push rods and lifters, which should fit. So why are the push rods bent? I think I still pursue my plan to buy new rods and try to losen the valves, before I restart. 

[KongaMan]

Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that cam is unique to 1954 -- or incorrect for 1953.  It just happens that the 1954 manual has a picture of a cam that appears to be similar to yours.  For all I know, the same cam may have been used across several model years.

[1953mack]

On ‎5‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 1:48 PM, Hans1965 said:

. . . Just checked the number left of #3 bearing center on my car. Looks like 1345  B7. No 'GM'. 

Right of #3 is no groove area, just one ring. . .Seems to be an aftermarket cam, am I right? . . .   

 

IMHO

♦  It is highly probable that you have a camshaft that wasn't made by Buick or GM since it does not have the GM trademark name noted.

♦  If it is an aftermarket camshaft, who's to say that they used the same coding as Buick did and whether or not they had a "one-size fits all" camshaft. Effort was made to duplicate this machined LAND, though.

♦  If you ever studied a CARS or BOB'S AUTOMOBILIA parts catalog and their parts numbering systems, rather than using Buick Part Numbers they use the applicable year numbers (3-4-5-6 or 53-54-55-56) as part of their numbering system. The number you noted on your camshaft as 1345 might be an example of what I am trying to describe and your camshaft might be applicable to 1953, 1954, and 1955 Buicks. Maybe an e-mail to the supply houses (KANTER, too) would answer your concerns. As long as you are checking them out, ask them the differences between their 1953-1955 camshafts and their 1956 camshafts.

♦  A later picture than what was posted in #107 above, was included in a 1955 Buick Service Bulletin that indicated 1955 Series 50 and 60 Buick V8 engines with a Synchromesh transmission were also identifiable without a groove. 1955 Series 50-60-70 camshafts used in Buick engines with a Dynaflow transmission were identified differently. 

 

Al Malachowski

BCA #8965

"500 Miles West of Flint"

Edited July 1, 2017 by 1953mack (see edit history)

[Beemon]

You may be able to zero a dial indicator at the low spot of the cam and then rotate the crankshaft to measure the height of the cam lobe. Then cross check it with the specs in the shop manual and see if that's where your geometry is off.

[NTX5467]

When using a dial indicator to measure "lobe lift" in this manner, you'll probably discover that "max lift" only happens for about 1 degree of crankshaft rotation, so keeping a good watch on the indicator's needle can be necessary.  What you're measuring is raw lobe lift.  To get to a "valve lift" figure, you'll need to multiply that figure by the rocker arm ratio (1.6?).  Or go backwards and divide the stated valve lift spec by the rocker arm ratio to get to "lobe lift".  In many cases, you'll also need to determine if the lobe being checked is "intake valve" or "exhaust valve" for the respective cylinder (as they CAN be different).

 

When I did this procedure to check actual valve lift curves, I'd put a valve lifter in its bore and use that as the interface between the dial indicator's plunger and the cam lobe.  That way, the base of the indicator could be mounted more reliably and the valve lifter would slide on the cam lobe to better supply valid lift curve information . . . rather than the plunger chattering on the cam's lobe surface as the camshaft/crankshaft was being manually turned.  In these curve generation activities, the diameter of the valve lifter base can be very important as it directly affects the shape of the valve lift curve, itself.

 

Checking lobe and valve lift can be very interesting!  With the engine on a suitable engine stand, you'll need a "degree wheel" and build a timing marker from a wire coat hanger (or similar) if the engine otherwise does not have a bolt-on timing pointer near the crankshaft damper/balancer.  With the cylinder head removed, you'll first need to determine "Top Dead Center" on the designated "#1" cylinder.  The degree wheel is attached to the crankshaft nose by the balancer bolt, usually, when such a method of attachment is used for the balancer.  If the balancer "slides on", then some attaching it to the crankshaft pulley might need to be done.  Once TDC is noted by piston movement, the timing marker can be "zeroed" on the degree wheel.

 

As you rotate the engine in the normal rotation direction, the valve lifter will be on the "base circle" of the camshaft and that reading should be noted, if the indicator's needle was not "zeroed".  As you slowly rotate the crankshaft and remove any operating slack, you'll first notice the needle more about .006" on "the ramp" as the lobe's "lift area" is approached.  This is usually termed "clearance ramp" as it gently starts removing "slack" or "clearance" for non-hydraulic valve trains before the "real lift" starts.  Using this starting point (SAE spec, sometimes a little more for the exhaust side) can result in greatly-increased stated valve event specs!  In the aftermarket cam arena, they started to use ".050" lift figures as an additional specification for valid comparison of camshafts as the "advertised" numbers could be somewhat variable from manufacturer to manufacturer.  Then, as you rotate the crankshaft, the "max lift" point will be quickly reached and "gone past" in about 1 degree of crankshaft rotation.

 

Noting the particular opening and closing events of the intake and exhaust lobes, don't be surprised at how MILD these older OEM camshafts might be when compared to many modern grinds for similar-sized motors!  At the time they were designed, as much as camshaft "science" had progressed, things have progressed humongously since then, especially since the middle 1980s.  A general rule of thumb has been mentioned . . . on OEM camshafts, take the advertised rating and multiply it by ".80" to get an approximation of the ".050" lift" valve event duration, for comparison purposes to other recent replacement camshafts.

 

This can make an interesting research project if you have several camshafts for a particular engine family to check.  Add an aftermarket replacement "hot rod" or "RV" cam into the mix for comparison and it gets more interesting!  "Cheap Entertainment" and additional "garage time" are by-products of this activity.  I determined that a performance camshaft company's cam would keep the valve open for a full 10 degrees of crank rotation (with an assymetrical lobe shape, as advertised) compared to the quick "1 degree" max lift situation of the OEM camshaft.  Of course, keep a log of the findings!  I did checks at each 10 degrees of crankshaft rotation so a lift curve could be manually graphed later on (now there are computer software that can do that).

 

NTX5467

[195354]

I have been following this thread with much interest.  I did not see any information if the engine was used on the road or just ran with no load since rebuild. If this has ran on the road and it performed as expected, for a few miles then the valves are most likely sticking in the head.

I have personally experienced this on a rebuild; the machine shop set the clearance tight on the valve stems. After about a thousand miles, it would run but hard start and rough idle. The result was bent push rods; the valve would be free when I did get cover removed. I would install a used push rod and it would be fine until it heated up. I used a spare valve cover, cut the top out, and proved that the valve would stick at times when warm.   NOTE this was on another engine 235 Chevy   it looks like similar symptom. I pulled head and the machine shop repaired the problem.

 Look in the Buick manual, valve stem clearance is .0025 inlet and .0030 Exhaust, also check valve stem height. I have a 322 from 1953 on an engine stand ready for paint and the machine shop used this information on my heads.

Steve  

  

[1953mack]

On ‎1‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 1:42 PM, Hans1965 said:

. . . By the way the engine was redone in the US in 2009 (whatever this means in detail). I have no paperwork about this . . .

 

On ‎5‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 9:44 AM, Hans1965 said:

. . . One remark: before Christmas I was in Simpsonville, SC, and test drove a red and white 53 Buick Super that is still available for 13.900 USD on ebay and was so much impressed by the smoothness and power of the engine. My engine never run as smooth and silent as this one. Maybe there is really something wrong with the rebuilt of the past. But this is wild speculation . . .   

 

Another bit of historical information that could be helpful to all would be to know . . .

♦  how long after 2009 you bought your Roadmaster;

♦  an idea of average miles driven each year since then;

♦  total miles you have driven it since you bought it;

♦  how long ago you started hearing weird noises coming out of the engine bay.

 

Thanks again.

 

Al Malachowski

BCA #8965

"500 Miles West of Flint"

[buick man]

… Hans … First did you inspect and verify that free rebound lash occurs in each and every hydraulic lifter … or since you now have the lifters out determine if all the bent rods correspond to stuck or internally frozen hydraulic lifters ?  The sound of your video is the result of a collapsed lifter as it was running then the lifter could not maintain oil pressure or release oil pressure and began to freeze, this in turn restricted the others as well and the bent rods will correspond to the firing order after the initial failed lifter thus the seemingly random order of other bent rods … so take your lifters apart one by one clean and inspect the internals you will find which one or ones are bad as you need to have functioning lifters before thinking of just replacing the push rods or you will repeat the same scenario … report back

Edited May 22, 2017 by buick man (see edit history)

[Hans1965]

Hi guys, I owe you an answer since quite a while. Four years back I put the car in a corner and let it sit. It was just too much trouble for me. More than I could stand and more than I felt capable of dealing with.

 

Two years back I gave it to a 70+ paint guy who spent 300 hours on it and needed more than a year to finish it. The result was just great. Some time ago I started reassembly of all the parts that had to go for the paint job, put new chrome bumpers on it, new venti ports, new rubber from Steele (spent 1000 bugs just for that), new window cylinders, new generator, new window wiper motor from Newport Engineering, rebuilt the mechanical pump, added an electric pump from Hardi, new carburetor etc... But I did not have the guts to take off the cylinder heads.

 

After reading the old 2017 threat here, I finally decided I am good to go. I know it is crazy. Should have started with that before dropping so much money in the car. But suddenly I felt, I can do that now.

 

Dismantled the heads and indeed the machine shop found two stuck valves and two others that were just too tight. One of the two had to be hammered out with a big one. No wonder that this killed my push rod and destroyed one lifter, everything was just too tight on these heads. 

 

Okay, I got them back end of January, put new 1953 lifters into it from Centerville, but had to realize the overall length with the 1953 push rods was just too long. On the engine the push rod fully compressed the spring in the lifter. So I used adjustable rods from Centerville and had to reduce the length by around 5 mm and preloaded the spring by ca 0.03 inch or one turn of the push rod head. So that really proved finally that my cam is not the original one as said here before. I checked everything at least 5 times and put it all slowly back together. Changed oil and filter element, by using Valvoline Racing oil, and added the coolant again. Of course had three water leaks that I had to fix. Then I lost my courage again for a few days, but yesterday was the day. 

 

After 4 years I can call it a car again. It was hesitant to start up, but then it was there. Made a klonking noise again and my first thought was all the work was for nothing. But then it slowly disappeared and I drove it to a big nearby supermarket parking lot (the car is currently not road legal here). I let it warm up and drove at least 50 rounds, accelerated, stopped, did as much test driving as possible and I have to say it runs super nicely now. Did not stall once, probably the idle is a little high as I did not fine tune the carb settings, but the engine is running really smooth and the nice rumble at the exhaust end is fantastic with no smoke. It really accelerates nicely. In the late afternoons sun it looked drop dead gorgeous. 

 

I want to thank everybody here for your help and encouragement over the years. Just took a little longer. Without your input and advice (and the help of the Centerville people that I need to give credit, too) it would have never come to a good end. I am really very grateful for that. 

 

Next project is to repair the coolant temperature sensor. It wasn't done right, and I destroyed the improvised thing during disassembly, so I definitely need a new one. Just plugged it for now. The work never stops, right? 

 

But my car is so beautiful now! Just an amazing piece of art. 

 

Thanks again for your support! 

 

[avgwarhawk]

Glad she is now repaired. Thanks for reporting back. It's always nice to know the outcome!