1941 Buick Limited Limousine

[EmTee]

Hmmmm, sure sounds like it's the fuel.  I guess if the car has been happy drinking 87 octane/10% maybe just go back to that.  I have been using 91 octane ethanol-free (except when I'm traveling and can't find it).  My tailpipes are all black, however, spark plugs look fine.  Is the black smoke just at startup while the choke is on, or does it persist after warmup?

 

In any case, I wouldn't mess with a good running car to accommodate gas that doesn't seem to be needed...

[Bloo]

Technically it is richer without the alcohol. Technically some changes might have to be made to compensate for the alcohol on cars too old to have an oxygen sensor. There are probably cases where a change needs to be made, however...

 

There has been alcohol and various other dilutants in gas since the 80s at least and probably the 70s. Driveability was my line of work when I was a mechanic, and I have yet to re-jet a car for no reason other than "oxygenated" (now typically 10% Ethanol) fuel. It seems to be a way-less-than-expected change in mixture. Anyhow, the Buick would have been jetted for the gas of the 40s, so no Ethanol then. I suspect there is more to the story.

 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Bloo (see edit history)

[Barney Eaton]

Glad that someone now has the car that will make use of it and its parts.   great find. 

Also thanks for the details and stories,  things that make the car unique and help document these older vehicles. 

[38Buick 80C]

Matt you note that you would go back to 87... octane rating is among other things an indication of how fast the burn of the gas air mixture. So 90 octane will burn slower thus you may not be getting a full and complete burn thus the "rich" indications. remember octane ratings of the period of the car were MUCH lower.

[Matt Harwood]

2 hours ago, 38Buick 80C said:

Matt you note that you would go back to 87... octane rating is among other things an indication of how fast the burn of the gas air mixture. So 90 octane will burn slower thus you may not be getting a full and complete burn thus the "rich" indications. remember octane ratings of the period of the car were MUCH lower.

 

That's my thought, too. 90 octane with a 6V ignition system may be a recipe for incomplete combustion in a car designed for 72 octane. Combined with the higher energy content and I'm not surprised it's running richer. As odd as it sounds, I think I'm going to go back to using the ethanol gas--the car ran beautifully on it, never had vapor-lock issues, and didn't smoke. I know a lot of guys hate ethanol, but I honestly have never really had any problems with it, even with all these cars in the showroom. Since it's the ubiquitous fuel available just about everywhere now, it makes more sense to keep the car tuned to use it rather than hold out hope that I can find the non-ethanol stuff on the road.

 

I'll go back to the 87 octane 10% ethanol and see what happens. @Bloo I'm pretty sure the gas is the problem, nothing more than that--it only started smoking when I switched fuels.

[Matt Harwood]

I did some dissection on the parts car this afternoon, grabbing some easy stuff that will make an immediate difference. I spent some time digging through the debris in the rear compartment and found the microphone for the intercom system, which was a very exciting find. It's in good condition, although the wires are cut--I'm not sure where it's supposed to connect but a little more archeology should provide the answer.

 

Microphone for the intercom is in surprisingly

good condition.

 

Then I went after that fog light knob for the dash, which swapped out easily. 

 

  

A little polish and some paint in the letters and the 

FOG LIGHT knob was ready to install.

 

  

It replaced the ACCESSORY knob I had been using. Perfect!
The FOG LIGHT knob also has the correct detent spring

so it won't buzz like the ACCESSORY knob did at certain RPM.

 

I decided to get some dirty work done so I put the parts car on jack stands and slid underneath. First to be removed was the splash pan, which I'll sandblast and have powdercoated before installing it on my car. It's held in place by seven bolts that fit into threaded bosses on the frame--no clips or nuts to worry about. My car should have the same threaded holes in the frame so installation will be a snap. I'll clean up the original bolts and re-use those, too. Only about five pounds of gunk from the past 80 years fell on my face while I was removing it, which was nice.

 

Splash pan will clean up nicely and then I'll install it

on my car. Sadly, the parts car only has the 

passenger side pan.

 

Another detail that has been bugging me from day one is how inaccurate my speedometer is. Two years ago, I found a replacement NOS speedometer drive gear with 19 teeth and tried installing it with only moderate results--my speedometer went from 8 MPH slow to 6 MPH slow. Frustrating. The engine and transmission in my Limited are from a 1941 Roadmaster, so I assume that's why the speedometer is so far off--the gears just aren't right for the 4.20 gears and 31-inch tires. Going from 20 teeth to 19 teeth the improvement was less than expected but I was stuck--it's not like these things are commonly available. I have to believe that the unit in the parts car is correct and sure enough, it's got 18 teeth, which should speed up my speedometer even more. By my math, my speedometer should now be about 2 MPH slow instead of 6, but we'll see once it's all assembled. It's progress (I hope).

 

NOS (left) and original driven gears have

19 and 20 gears, respectively. Sadly, it gave

me only a very minor improvement.

 

Driven gear out of the parts car has 18 teeth and

I can only assume that's correct for a Limited

with 4.20 gears.

 

Next up will be harvesting the interior escutcheon plates and handles and replacing the broken one on my driver's door. The parts car is already paying for itself!

 

 

[Bloo]

Matt, before you run that look in a parts book and make absolutely sure the drive gear (on the shaft, inside the transmission) is the same on Roadmaster as Limited. Not all GM cars had interchangeable speedometer pinions yet in 1941. I think Buick did, but I am not 100% sure. I would want to know for sure before risking an unobtanium speedometer pinion.

[Matt Harwood]

1 minute ago, Bloo said:

Matt, before you run that look in a parts book and make absolutely sure the drive gear (on the shaft, inside the transmission) is the same on Roadmaster as Limited. Not all GM cars had interchangeable speedometer pinions yet in 1941. I think Buick did, but I am not 100% sure. I would want to know for sure before risking an unobtanium speedometer pinion.

 

I have this chart from a 1942 Manual that suggests the drive gear in the transmission is the same. The 1942 cars have slightly different rear gear ratios compared to the 1941s but the drive gear is the same for all of them. That's all I've got to go on, but if they were all the same in 1942, I'm optimistic that they're all the same in 1941. Sure, 1942 doesn't show an 18-tooth driven gear, but fewer teeth should technically speed up my speedometer. 10% fewer teeth (18 vs. 20) should speed it up by 10%. So at 60 MPH I'm showing an indicated 54. 10% faster should be 59.4 MPH.  Or thereabouts. I hope.

[Bloo]

In my opinion, don't run that until you can confirm. Interchangeable gears are more of a 60s thing than a 40s thing, and even then you can only go so many teeth before they don't mesh anymore or crash. You have the other half in the parts car. If you need to change it, find out while you still have teeth on the pinion.

 

EDIT: I just realized I have @37_Roadmaster_C's Buick parts book here, and It looks like you just squeak by. It is a 1929-1941 book, and is showing a (4.343) 1315023 drive gear "worm" for all 1940-41.

 

In 1939, there is a different drive gear for every series. In 1938, even knowing the year, series, and axle ratio is not enough. Sometimes you need the frame number.

 

Assuming those gears are all 1941 large series I show in group 4.337:

 

1315064     1941 60 & 70  -  51:14 axle ratio (3.64)         -  18 teeth

                    (also 1940 60&70  -  47:13 axle ratio (3.61))     

 

1315065     1940-41 60 & 70  -  39:10 axle ratio (3.91)      -  19 teeth

                   1941 60 & 70  -  51:13 axle ratio (3.92)

                      (also 1940 80 with 46:11 (4.18))

1321528     1941 90  -  46:11 (4.18)                 -  unspecified teeth

 

There is also 1315066 for 1940 90  -  41:9 axle ratio (4.55) with 21 teeth.

 

So yeah, I think you probably nailed it with 20 teeth.

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by Bloo (see edit history)

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

Matt, glad you are having fun for a change.  With 7 bolts in that pan , they sure did not want that rascal leaving.

 

  Ben

[1939_Buick]

From 1928-52 Master parts book pg 166 extract.

More on group 4.337 part 1321528

And worm part number.

 

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by 1939_Buick
2nd image worm drive part number (see edit history)

[Matt Harwood]

Thanks for the parts book information--my book is at the shop so I haven't had a chance to review it yet.

 

However both versions of the parts book, above, seem to suggest that a 20-tooth gear is correct for a 1941 90 series with a 4.18 gearset (which I have verified is in my car). The 20-tooth gear is what I removed from my car initially and it was off by a whopping 8 MPH (slow). I installed the 19-tooth gear and it improved to 6 MPH slow, so a marginal improvement but not enough. 

 

The real mystery is that I pulled the 18-tooth gear from the parts car and I have no reason to believe it has been changed at any point. I don't know what gears are in the back--I do not believe there were optional gears for the Limited in 1941 so it should also have 4.18. I'm left wondering how a 20-tooth gear could be correct if the drive gears in the transmission are all the same yet my car was off by 8 MPH. Do books often make mistakes? The 1942 shop manual seems to indicate that the drive gear is 7 teeth and the Limited uses a 21-tooth driven gear (although it's worth noting that the 1942 Limited used 4.55 gears). I have my 1941 shop manual at the shop, so I'll take a look and see if there are any notations in that book that are more directly applicable to my car. Here's a page from the '42 manual:

 

 

Fewer driven teeth should technically mean the speedometer spins faster, so I think 18 teeth makes more sense than 20 in my situation. Even though the Limited has the shortest differential gears on paper, it also has the tallest tires and ultimately, the lowest tire revolutions/mile so the gear in the transmission should be the slowest spinner, not the fastest (bear in mind that this is the 1942 manual and the 1942 Limited had 4.55 gears instead of 4.18). Note the chart at the bottom of this page:

 

 

I guess the only way to find out is to put the 18-tooth gear in there and see what happens. I'm not sure what else could be amiss other than tire diameter, but the radials are almost exactly the same diameter as the original 7.50-16 bias-ply tires. I don't think that alone could cause a >10% error in the speedo.

 

This is all starting to hurt my brain. We'll just give it a try and hope that the speedo improves to a useful degree instead of another 2 MPH increment.

[Bloo]

The factory sometimes misses, but usually not by very much. One potential problem here is that you should never go by MPH when selecting speedometer gears. Check the odometer. Get that right. If the speedometer is still off, the trouble is in the speedometer head, not the gears.

 

As for the 2mph increment, that can be calculated if you care. It varies all over the place by make and model, and by the number of total teeth on the worm, but a 5% change is typical for a tooth, at least on some cars. 5% is 5mph at 100mph, so 2-1/2mph  at 50mph.

 

[1939_Buick]

Interesting problem. 

Is the road speed being checked by a GPS to the needle on the speedo dial?  GPS accurate?

The worm drive gear would be hard to identify.

The parts car could have anything done to it in the last ~80 years.  Is the engine serial number from 1941?

Edited August 28, 2022 by 1939_Buick (see edit history)

[Matt Harwood]

Well, my plan today was to put the Buick on the lift and do some undercarriage work like replacing that speedometer drive and installing the splash pan, but it's raining and there were a number of cars in the shop between the Buick and the lift. I also discovered my sandblast cabinet is not working for some reason, so I couldn't clean and paint the splash pan. Dang.

 

Instead I pulled a few of the escutcheon plates out of the parts car and replaced the missing one on my driver's door. Not a particularly difficult job, but one that took more time than expected just because all the parts were so fiddly. I'll let the photos tell the story:

 

Pulled the escutcheon from the parts car (left) to

replace the incorrect one I was using. The Limited

pieces are bigger but I'd argue the pieces from

the other series are more attractive. All the parts

from the parts car are in great shape so I'll carefully

remove them and keep them for the future.

 

  

Interestingly enough, the Limited escutcheon is spring-loaded

so that once it's in place, the collar on the inside fits tightly

to the base of the crank handle. Clever, but complicated. The

collar was sticky and dirty, so I had to do some disassembly and

cleaning to get it to move freely.

 

I also saved the original handle clip (left). I have a 

bag of replacements that I bought recently, but

as you can see, they're quite a bit bigger (right).

Ultimately, I re-used the original because it

fit under the collar better and stayed out of sight.

 

The reproduction clip doesn't fit under

the escutcheon as well as it should.

 

  

Installed, you can see how the spring-loaded collar

fits tightly against the handle for a clean look.

 

There was a bunch of fiddly work cleaning and polishing the escutcheon, removing the collar and spring (without breaking the plastic!), and getting everything to fit properly and slide easily. Unfortunately, the decorative plastic is swedged onto the metal base around the perimeter, so I couldn't remove it to clean and polish the exposed areas underneath. It's not as shiny and perfect as I wanted but I didn't want to risk breaking the plastic trying to remove it. I used some Q-tips and brushes to try to get in there, but that's about as good as I can make it. Meh, I'm the only guy who will notice.

 

Also note: acetone makes 1941 plastic more sticky, not less.

 

Wish I had gotten more done. Maybe tomorrow I'll get under the car and see if my speedometer accuracy improves.

[38Buick 80C]

I have had to clip off a bit of the repro door clips to make them work.

[Matt Harwood]

Today was one of those days when I got a lot done but it was nonetheless unsatisfying. We're trying to decide which cars to bring to Hershey, but two of my top three picks are having difficulties. One is a beautiful old wagon with a title issue that I hope we can resolve and the car itself is nothing more a set of tires away from greatness. Unfortunately, new tires are not available until February. Ugh. The other is a big Full Classic that just doesn't want to run properly. At first it had no power so I tweaked it a bit and got the power back, but now it won't idle, it just dies no matter what I do. Frustrating...

 

So I turned to Buick work, getting mixed results. I bought some replacement parts for my blast cabinet and threw in the splash pan from the parts car. Unfortunately, the blaster still isn't blasting very well, even with a new pickup and rebuilt gun. No idea what's wrong there so I guess I'll buy a new cabinet. 20 years' service was good enough, I suppose. Without the blast cabinet, I grabbed my air powered die grinder and chucked in a wire wheel and cleaned the splash pan that way. There was a lot of ancient grease and grime caked on there so it made a real mess. I discovered a few rust holes in the pan itself, buried under the grime. I debated whether to weld them up, but ultimately decided that the thin sheetmetal would be a hassle to weld and it would just eat up a lot of time, all for a part that will be virtually invisible. 

 

Cleaned the splash pan with a wire wheel. Not

perfect, but given its location, perfection isn't

mandatory.

 

Shot it with some etching primer.

 

Found a few pinholes in the pan, but decided

not to try to weld them up given how thin the

metal is. It could have turned into a major ordeal.

 

Once it was clean, I hung it on my painting rig and gave it a coat of primer, then let it sit in the sun and dry while I put the Buick up on the lift. I pulled the old speedometer drive gear (19 teeth) and installed the 18-tooth gear I removed from the parts car. All the manuals say an 18-tooth gear should be the right one for a Limited with 4.19 gears, so I was optimistic that my slow speedometer would finally be accurate. It went in with no issues.

 

18 (left) vs. 19-tooth gears. I installed the 18-tooth

unit, which is correct for a 1941 Limited with 4.19 gears.

 

Finished with the gears, I gave my splash pan a coat of semi-gloss black paint. While it was drying, I pulled out one of the other cars I hope to take to Hershey, an early '60s piece of Ford muscle, and ran it up and down the street to put some heat in it and see how it really runs. It was all good and didn't hassle me in the least. A relief.

 

So I went back under the Buick and looked at the spot where the splash pan will go and had second thoughts about installing it. One, I still have to deal with that rubber fuel line that I found a few months ago, and it doesn't make sense to close off that area when there's still work to be done. And two, I wonder whether the splash pan improve or inhibit cooling? Right now, air flows through the engine bay easily and the starter, which is right there, stays in the airflow. Will the splash pan reduce cooling? I tend to trust the engineers who built these things, but what was the splash pan's purpose? To keep debris out or to manage airflow? I suspect the former and given that it rarely sees inclement weather, maybe I don't need it? Now I don't know.

 

I took the car off the lift without installing the splash pan and drove it home. The speedometer is better, but still reads 4 MPH slow according to my GPS. That's about what I expected--it was off by 8 MPH at first with a 20-tooth gear, then improved to 6 MPH with a 19-tooth gear, and now 4 MPH with an 18-tooth gear. I guess that's as good as I can expect but I just don't know why it's so far off. Sure, it's a primitive car but that's a pretty significant error even for 1941. I suppose I could use one of those inline gear reducers if I really want that last little bit of accuracy. Meh, whatever.

 

See what I mean? A busy, yet ultimately dissatisfying day.

[DonMicheletti]

I hate days like that when you work hard all day and it seems nothing is done

[dibarlaw]

Maybe Matt needed some diversion after our visit on our way to the Old Car Festival.

Edited September 13, 2022 by dibarlaw (see edit history)

[TexRiv_63]

19 hours ago, Matt Harwood said:

 

While it was drying, I pulled out one of the other cars I hope to take to Hershey, an early '60s piece of Ford muscle, and ran it up and down the street to put some heat in it and see how it really runs. It was all good and didn't hassle me in the least. A relief.

 

Was it the 61 Starliner? Please sell that thing so I can stop thinking about it...

[Matt Harwood]

2 hours ago, TexRiv_63 said:

Was it the 61 Starliner? Please sell that thing so I can stop thinking about it...

Yup. You should hear it when you dip into those outer carburetors...

 

[TexRiv_63]

23 hours ago, Matt Harwood said:

Yup. You should hear it when you dip into those outer carburetors...

 

Stop it, I may pass out....

[Buicknutty]

On 9/10/2022 at 6:16 PM, Matt Harwood said:

I suppose I could use one of those inline gear reducers if I really want that last little bit of accuracy. Meh, whatever.

That's what I did on my '41 Roadmaster when I installed the 3.4's.

Keith

[MCHinson]

I wonder if the problem is the speedometer itself? While I would certainly not want to swap one out, if it bothers you that much, maybe pulling the speedometer and having it rebuilt by a professional might be the best course of action. If the speedometer spring has weakened over the years, it would easily explain the problem. 

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

FWIW, in all my 70+ years of driving, I have seen NO speedometer that was precise.  Until GPS.   Even my 1992 Roadmaster is off { reading 2 mph fast} per radar and GPS.

 

  Ben

[Matt Harwood]

I will never take this car for granted again. After driving the Lincoln all summer, we had a Buick Club event this afternoon. We're leaving for Hershey tomorrow so attending this event was kind of a last-minute thing. Nevertheless, we jumped in the Buick, turned the key, and it fired right up almost instantly just like always. We blasted about 40 miles to the show on nice side roads at 50-55 MPH and it was completely effortless. I mean, the Lincoln is pretty smooth and quiet, but it can't match this Buick and with some back-to-back seat time, the Buick felt like a new car. It was quite a contrast. It was so easy, fast, quiet, and smooth that it almost felt like a different car. Like I said, I'll never take it for granted again. 

 

Not a huge show, but a nice time with some friends on a beautiful afternoon.

 

A few Full Classics made the event.

 

Margus Sweigard's spectacular 1932 Buick 

Model 95 Sport Touring.

 

See you at Hershey!

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

BUICK ALL THE WAY!!

 

  Ben

[EmTee]

With eyes closed, the perception when riding in my '38 Century is practically indistinguishable from a 1960s or early '70s GM sedan.

[neil morse]

On 10/1/2023 at 4:54 PM, EmTee said:

With eyes closed, the perception when riding in my '38 Century is practically indistinguishable from a 1960s or early '70s GM sedan.

Hey, be careful out there!   The image of you speeding down the highway with your eyes closed is a little bit scary. 😄

[EmTee]

Well, I did say riding, not driving! 

[Matt Harwood]

Probably our last event of the year, the annual Ohio Region CCCA clambake. The weather was rainy and overcast, but I decided to drive the Buick anyway. We decided against the Lincoln simply because it's harder to clean and the Buick is faster so we could take the highway home if necessary. We weren't alone, fortunately, as there were four other Full Classics in attendance--I was proud to see that the weather didn't scare everyone into leaving their cars at home.

 

David Schultz's 1937 Pierce-Arrow

 

Eric Patterson's 1936 Pierce-Arrow V12

limousine

 

A new car I haven't seen before so I don't know

who owns it--1941 Cadillac 62 convertible

 

Dan Hanlon's 1947 Packard Custom 8

 

Full Classics in between rain storms

 

And the Limited hit a bit of a milestone

on the drive home. Wish I could get

 my trip odometer numbers to line up

correctly.

 

I've started lining up winter projects. On this car, I'm going to install a new factory temperature gauge and a new gas gauge and get both of those working. My wipers were pretty sluggish and I don't think my vacuum pump built into the fuel pump was making much vacuum, so some work is needed there, as well. And, of course, there's a torque ball seal in my future, although I'm loathe to take on that project. It's gonna suck! But with the Lincoln healthy, I don't have to worry as much about having a car out of action for a while, so I might just tackle it some weekend when I can also replace the clutch (as long as I'm in there, right?). We'll see how it goes. My to-do list keeps getting longer and longer with all these cars...

[Grant Z]

Thanks for that post Matt, along with the photos of some truly spectacular cars. Much appreciated.

[EmTee]

Glad to see the Limited getting some well-deserved drive time. 

[neil morse]

17 hours ago, Matt Harwood said:

I've started lining up winter projects. On this car, I'm going to install a new factory temperature gauge and a new gas gauge and get both of those working.

Matt, as long as you're going to tackle those gauges, meaning that you're going to be removing the instrument panel, you may as well have your speedo rebuilt while you're at it if the trip odometer is really bothering you.  I would not recommend trying to get those numbers aligned on your own -- there are a lot of tiny springs and clips involved -- but a speedo shop will do it for you.  The worst part of the job is getting that panel off and getting the gauges out.  Feel free to contact me if you run into trouble -- I have some tips.

[kgreen]

18 hours ago, Matt Harwood said:

My to-do list keeps getting longer and longer with all these cars...

May your list stay long and your results fruitful.  If my list ever runs out, it's because I'll be sitting in a corner drooling and not knowing when my last meal or diaper change occured.

[EmTee]

20 hours ago, neil morse said:

I would not recommend trying to get those numbers aligned on your own -- there are a lot of tiny springs and clips involved...

Having done this on my '38, I'll say that three hands (or at least twelve fingers) would have been helpful!  I narrowly avoided catastrophe when disassembling the odometer and pieces popped free.  Took several deep breaths and tens of minutes to coax everything back together.  Fortunately, I had a second speedometer to look at as a reference.

[Fox H.]

I must admit, I was very excited when I saw the notification that this thread was getting some attention! Definitely one of my favourite cars on this forum and makes me want to buy a 320 ci '41 Buick sometime soon.
 

Can't wait to see what all you'll be doing to it. I'll be following with poorly veiled enthusiasm. 

[Buicknutty]

On 10/15/2023 at 6:44 PM, Matt Harwood said:

Probably our last event of the year, the annual Ohio Region CCCA clambake. The weather was rainy and overcast, but I decided to drive the Buick anyway. We decided against the Lincoln simply because it's harder to clean and the Buick is faster so we could take the highway home if necessary. We weren't alone, fortunately, as there were four other Full Classics in attendance--I was proud to see that the weather didn't scare everyone into leaving their cars at home.

 

David Schultz's 1937 Pierce-Arrow

 

Eric Patterson's 1936 Pierce-Arrow V12

limousine

 

A new car I haven't seen before so I don't know

who owns it--1941 Cadillac 62 convertible

 

Dan Hanlon's 1947 Packard Custom 8

 

Full Classics in between rain storms

 

And the Limited hit a bit of a milestone

on the drive home. Wish I could get

 my trip odometer numbers to line up

correctly.

 

I've started lining up winter projects. On this car, I'm going to install a new factory temperature gauge and a new gas gauge and get both of those working. My wipers were pretty sluggish and I don't think my vacuum pump built into the fuel pump was making much vacuum, so some work is needed there, as well. And, of course, there's a torque ball seal in my future, although I'm loathe to take on that project. It's gonna suck! But with the Lincoln healthy, I don't have to worry as much about having a car out of action for a while, so I might just tackle it some weekend when I can also replace the clutch (as long as I'm in there, right?). We'll see how it goes. My to-do list keeps getting longer and longer with all these cars...

  That's great Matt. So a wee story here. On a cloudy afternoon we took the '41 Roadmaster to a local cruise night, after a bit a very light drizzle started. Some of the regulars at this one bring their late model Mustangs to it, and guess who were the first ones out! You got it, the Mustang crowd!

 Sheesh!

Keith

[Buicknutty]

On 10/18/2023 at 3:39 PM, Fox H. said:

I must admit, I was very excited when I saw the notification that this thread was getting some attention! Definitely one of my favourite cars on this forum and makes me want to buy a 320 ci '41 Buick sometime soon.
 

Can't wait to see what all you'll be doing to it. I'll be following with poorly veiled enthusiasm. 

  As the owner of a '41 Roadmaster which I restored to be a nice driver, with higher speed rear gears from a 50's Buick I cannot recommend them enough. As long as the car is properly sorted out they are great drivers!

Keith

[Grant Z]

2 hours ago, Buicknutty said:

  As the owner of a '41 Roadmaster which I restored to be a nice driver, with higher speed rear gears from a 50's Buick I cannot recommend them enough. As long as the car is properly sorted out they are great drivers!

Keith

Hi Keith, what ratio were in your Roadmaster, and what ratio have you moved to (and from which year)?

 

Here in Australia, we have many open spaces and I do long miles occasionally (our nearest interstate capital is 500 miles), so I'm very interested in having better mileage in my 41 Roadmaster (under full restoration now).