1928 Buick Coupe newjersey craigslist

[Oregon Desert model 45]

NOT MINE

https://newjersey.craigslist.org/cto/d/1928-buick-coupe/6480508643.html

 

1928 Buick Coupe - $10500 (Toms River)

 

[dibarlaw]

Similar to the one at our Mason Dixon show last June that one Best of show. Model 58. This one looks to need a little more TLC that that one did. If it runs it is priced fairly. I wonder what carb they are using on the flipped manifold?

 

[sligermachine]

Wow that is running  ?? probably not  for that price 

[50jetback]

The rust on the side of the block indicates it is weeping/leaking water from the water galleries. Would think that would be the reason it is priced very realistically for a high end model Buick showing a lot of originality.  

[auburnseeker]

I doubt it's a scam.  The owner is probably just done with it.  It has unobscured NJ tags,  gives an exact location and mentions nothing about the history of the car company.  All of which seem to be the calling cards for the scams. 

[John_S_in_Penna]

Here is the information from the ad, for some

soon-to-be 1928 Buick owner.  Craig's List ads

have short expiration dates.

 

"1928 Buick coupe, classic, collectors, antique, wood spoke wheels.  Great car.  Needs a new home.

Jim  (732) 267-2416."

 

The short, uninformative ad makes me think that

the seller knows little about the car.  The only thing he

tells us is that it has wood spoke wheels!  Perhaps it was

his late father's or grandfather's.

[auburnseeker]

That's the exact feel I got from the ad. 

[Buickborn]

I don't much care for the downdraft carburetor conversion in this car.  Judging by how well the original updraft system works in my '30 roadster, I see no valid reason for this clearly incorrect modification.

[auburnseeker]

Could be compression was getting bad.  With bad compression updraft carbs don't work very well.  Second guess,  would be they couldn't find the right carb.  years ago before the Net. 

[carbking]

The downdraft conversion is quite common where the original carb was a Marvel. We have had a number of customers contact us about it. While certainly an obvious and  major modification, it is one that totally changes the complexion of the car for someone who enjoys driving the car. And it can easily be done without spending a small fortune (or a large one, if one is restoring and original Marvel with the heat control system).

 

The carb pictured appears to be a Rochester B, probably from a Chevrolet truck 235 (manual choke). Personally, I would have picked a different downdraft, but whatever.

 

Jon.

[Buickborn]

        Carbking, I'm not sure what you mean by "changes the complexion of the car for someone who enjoys driving the car."  While, as a mere hobbyist I can't claim your obvious level of expertise in these matters, I think you'll agree that modifications should not go beyond what is necessary to correct any deficiencies in the car's performance.

         In the case of my '30 series-44 roadster, I theorized that its somewhat lackluster performance was due to unnecessary (due to the high volatility of today's fuel) heat in the intake system. So, with no deletions of original equipment, I fabricated and installed couple of simple sheet-metal partitions to block the flow of exhaust through the heat riser system -- a solution that worked like magic.  Now the car performs well, starts nicely (in fact, instantly in moderate temperatures), and continues to keep the carburetor relatively cool due to the carb's original low position next to the crankcase.  Not only that, but if I clumsily manage to overchoke, excess fuel does not flow down into the engine.

         Not a bad outcome, withal, for a few cents' worth of material.  And, by the way, I am definitely someone who enjoys driving my car.

         Incidentally, I like your choice of words.  I'll have to remember changes the complexion . . . 

[carbking]

Buickborn - if you add cost and safety to your first sentence, then I will agree with you completely.

 

As far as performance is concerned, the downdraft will significantly improve performance, even over a Stromberg or Zenith updraft; especially on a somewhat worn engine. On a engine in excellent condition, probably 10 percent over a Stromberg or Zenith, more if a Marvel. On a worn engine, more than this.

 

As far as cost is concerned, if one owns a machine shop, does one's own work, and doesn't count one's time, there is no difference; otherwise.....................

 

As far as safety is concerned, a downdraft is not going to drain the fuel tank (or vacuum tank) on the ground under the engine.

 

Flipping the intake IS reversible, as long as the owner doesn't throw away the heat riser system.

 

Incidentally, another common modification on other vehicles with Marvels where the manifold cannot be flipped is to pick a different updraft (generally a Carter, Stromberg, or Zenith) and have a "spacer" cast to (A) replace the defective (or missing) heat riser, and (B) change the flange arrangement to allow the installation of the different carburetor. Again, a modification that can be reversed.

 

I really do like to keep a vehicle original as far as possible; but sometime there are exceptions.

 

Jon.

Edited March 4, 2018 by carbking (see edit history)

[C Carl]

7 hours ago, carbking said:

.................................. Personally, I would have picked a different downdraft, but whatever.

 

Jon.

 

Some examples , please ?  Anyone have a good one ? This is a '30 , and I would REALLY like to just get it running. From what I have learned here , I don't feel like any more frustration in my life at this late stage. Looks like this intake manifold has a head start on inversion. Thanks much ,    - Carl 

 

 

[carbking]

Carl - for the 1930, I would suggest a Carter YF from a Ford 240 CID 6 cylinder truck. The truck carb would have the manual choke. I believe the first year would have been 1969, and they were used up through maybe 1974 (my records end with the 1974 model year). Excellent carb, and common as dirt, so inexpensive.

 

You will need to fabricate a flange adapter to adapt the carb to the manifold.

 

Jon.

[C Carl]

Thank you Jon , for the Carter YF recommendation. Anyone have one to sell ? An adapter flange sounds easy.    - Carl 

[John]

5 hours ago, C Carl said:

Thank you Jon , for the Carter YF recommendation. Anyone have one to sell ? An adapter flange sounds easy.    - Carl 

 

I have an NOS 7406S for $250 shipped within US.  It was used on a Jeep 6 cyl form the mid 70's.

[tonybuick]

Hi you will need to run a elect fuel pump as well I did it to my 25x25 it works real well starts good going up hills just put your foot down and go better miles to the dollar just works so well would never go back

[Buickborn]

Imperial62, I'm sure updraft carburetion derived from primitive fuel delivery systems:  gravity feed; or fuel tanks pressurized by a manual driver-operated pump; or, later on, vacuum tanks -- all of which would be challenged by the uphill-feed required by a (necessarily high-mounted) downdraft carburetor, especially if the vehicle were tackling an uphill incline.

 

In spite of obvious concerns about the gravity-defying upward air/fuel stream issuing from an updraft carburetor, my experience with them is that (like 6-volt electrical systems) they work just fine if everything is in good order.  That is the case with my '30 44 roadster, which -- like a friend's Model A -- starts very quickly and responds well to the go pedal.  

 

Updrafts were in common use into the early 60's in in-line marine engines (in order to allow for a low-profile engine box), and I have yet to waterski behind a boat that could pull me out of the water faster than my dad's '58 Owens powered by a Zenith-updraft-carbureted Hercules marine mill.

 

Concerning Marvel carburetors, they were indeed beset with problems, so much so that in 1934 Buick abruptly fired Marvel in connection with the new downdraft 233 engines.  But apparently Buick was stuck with Marvel in the case of senior engines until 1936, when the new, downdraft style, 320 was introduced.

[Buickborn]

Well, re: gravity-feed, I think we need to distinguish between what might be termed pure (?) gravity feed as opposed to . . . vacuum-assisted gravity-feed?  An example of the former is that which appearing in pre-V8 Fords, which carried the fuel tank high in the cowl, from which it simply ran down into the carb.  In the vacuum-tank system, engine vacuum drew fuel into a chamber in the high mounted unit which then (governing the fuel level by means of a float valve) fed the carb via gravity.  Neither of these systems, of course, would be compatible with high-mounted updraft carburetors.

[Buickborn]

I really should proofread my entries.  The last two words of my last post should be downdraft carburetors.

[60FlatTop]

If you covert everything to absolute pressure and look at the device as a burette it gets easier. Like a paint spray gun with the compressor on the other side.

Bernie

[carbking]

14 hours ago, Buickborn said:

Imperial62, I'm sure updraft carburetion derived from primitive fuel delivery systems:  gravity feed; or fuel tanks pressurized by a manual driver-operated pump; or, later on, vacuum tanks -- all of which would be challenged by the uphill-feed required by a (necessarily high-mounted) downdraft carburetor, especially if the vehicle were tackling an uphill incline.

 

In spite of obvious concerns about the gravity-defying upward air/fuel stream issuing from an updraft carburetor, my experience with them is that (like 6-volt electrical systems) they work just fine if everything is in good order.  That is the case with my '30 44 roadster, which -- like a friend's Model A -- starts very quickly and responds well to the go pedal.  

 

Updrafts were in common use into the early 60's in in-line marine engines (in order to allow for a low-profile engine box), and I have yet to waterski behind a boat that could pull me out of the water faster than my dad's '58 Owens powered by a Zenith-updraft-carbureted Hercules marine mill.

 

Concerning Marvel carburetors, they were indeed beset with problems, so much so that in 1934 Buick abruptly fired Marvel in connection with the new downdraft 233 engines.  But apparently Buick was stuck with Marvel in the case of senior engines until 1936, when the new, downdraft style, 320 was introduced.

 

Was raised in rural Missouri.

 

Seems like many areas (counties, towns, etc.) had a "try-out hill". This was a steep hill where a new vehicle (car or truck) was taken to see if the vehicle could climb the hill going forward. My Dad took me to the Chariton County Missouri hill and told me the story approximately 1955.  Dad said the first car he owned that would climb the hill in forward gears was a 1932 Chevrolet. Prior to the 1932 Chevy, he had owned a number of Model T's, Model A's, and a 1928 Chevrolet. These cars had to back up the hill to make it to the top.

 

As to the Marvels: I am unaware why Buick stayed with Marvel on the larger engines after beginning use of Stromberg in 1934. If it was a matter of needing the updraft because of engine design, Stromberg had the two barrel UUR-2 (and even larger UUR-3) that certainly would have fed the engine. GUESSING that the engineers (or more probably, the accountants) knew the new engines were in the works, and didn't wish to spend additional R & D on an engine that was to soon be replaced.

 

After Stromberg was added, Stromberg sold Buick some experimental SINGLE BARREL carbs, which were tried as a "compound carburetion" as early as 1935; but never made production.

 

I have posted here before, and have an article on my website, concerning the lack of drivability, reliability, etc. of BOTH the Marvels and Strombergs in 1937 and 1938 due to the Delco automatic choke. The Stromberg engineers begged Buick to use a different choke, but Delco was a GM company, so the request fell on deaf ears.

 

I have been told (so hearsay) but have no original document stating that Buick starting using TWO vendors for non-Buick produced items (i.e. carburetors) to prevent Buick from being held hostage by a strike at a vendor's plant. Thus, when Marvel was thankfully discontinued at the end of 1938, Carter was added to provide carburetors along with Stromberg beginning in 1939.

 

And yes, Carter, Stromberg, and Zenith ALL produced EXCELLENT (opinion) updraft carburetors, well into the 1960's for use on marine applications; and at least into the 1950's for C.O.E. trucks. But like everything else, some updraft designs were far superior to others. Marvel had a customer base mostly within a 50 mile radius of Flint, Michigan (where is the headquarters for Buick  ), and when communication and transportation improved, some of the companies with less desirable products found it difficult to compete.

 

The truck/marine comment brings to mind a bit of trivia concerning the Carter 871SC (updraft) carburetor used on mid-1950's Chevrolet DD (double-duty) trucks (these are some of the carbs that are fitted to older cars with varying success, depending on the skill and knowledge of the installer). The trivia: there was a mistake in the Carter price book that seemingly everyone in the industry was aware of EXCEPT CARTER! A new 871SC carb was CHEAPER than the repair kit for the 871SC carb!!! Thus, if a customer took the truck in for a carburetor rebuild, the dealer ordered a new carb, installed the carb, and charged the customer for a carburetor rebuild.

 

I had a similar happening when I had to replace the camshaft on a 1979 Ford turbo. The SVO camshaft kit (with lifters) was approximately 10 percent (that's right, a 90 percent discount!) of the stock camshaft (give you one guess which one is in my car  ).

 

Jon.

Edited March 8, 2018 by carbking (see edit history)

[60FlatTop]

1 hour ago, carbking said:

This was a steep hill where a new vehicle (car or truck) was taken to see if the vehicle could climb the hill going forward.

 

You can ask my Wife about that one. I know she still remembers. When it is a dirt road and so steep you can't go forward the brakes don't work too well backing down.

 

I think my Mother and my Wife are the only ones whom prayed out loud riding with me.... more than once. And it wasn't because I was speeding.

Bernie

[Buickborn]

Carb King, on my '30 44, the cast iron heat riser jacket bears the Marvel logo. Assuming, therefore, that Buick had contracted with Marvel for the complicated heat riser system as well as for carburetors, surely you're correct in supposing that cancelling with Marvel would have led Buick into objectionable development expense in light of the updraft engine's imminent demise.

[Terry Wiegand]

At one point in time I was the poster boy for anything on my Buicks but a Marvel carburetor.  I bought into this incorrect thinking that a Carter BB1 was the ONLY thing that would make our cars run right.  And then I was told about the folks down in Phoenix who rebuild the brass-bodied Marvel carburetors.  Classic Carburetors restored the unit on our 1922 Model 48, 6-Cylinder Coupe.  That car is an absolute joy to drive with the factory carburetor in place.  I paid an astronomical price for one of those Carter units and was fortunate enough to unload it before having to install it on the engine.  I recouped my money and used a good portion of it to have the correct Marvel rebuilt.  It makes a world of difference when folks know what they are doing take on the rebuilding of one of these brass-bodied units.  I do not know how many hundreds of thousands of Marvel Carburetors were placed on Buick automobiles and trucks before they went to some other make.  They surely weren't all that bad or Buick would not have stayed with them.  I have enclosed a photo of the unit from our 1916 Buick.

 

Terry Wiegand

South Hutchinson, Kansas

[Buickborn]

        Terry -- Nice to hear from someone sharing my take on staying with original equipment!  (I was beginning to feel like the Lone Ranger on this Marvel carburetor issue.)

Actually, you've gone an extra mile, I feel, in playing defense here.  That is, you seem to be suggesting that your Marvel is absolutely satisfactory.  Great!  So is mine.

         But perhaps the central question is:  even if we accept that updating would improve performance, so what?  Is that result really consonant with what we're trying to accomplish in preserving and restoring this old stuff?  After all, if performance is the criterion, why not just yank out the entire mill and drop in a 350?

          At the end of the day, then, I think we earn better bragging rights when we can point with pride to our preservation of historically correct systems than when we have to explain what we have cobbled together in the name of "improvements."

 

Edited March 11, 2018 by Buickborn
word order error (see edit history)

[29 franklin]

This car has sold 

[lhend50]

I spoke to the guy about the car about a month ago. He has had the car a long time, stopped driving it when gas tank started leaking. He had tank repaired and it is back in car, but he has not started it to my knowledge. Said car ran fine. I made an offer but I guess it was too low.