1934 Chevrolet DC 3-Window Coupe Preservation

[TexRiv_63]

My car came with a plain teardrop radiator cap which I assume is a reproduction as it is made out of stamped sheetmetal. Wanting an upgrade I looked for the 33-34 Phoenix cast mascot on Ebay. Quite a few available in very different conditions and prices but I found an original with an exterior finish that matched the car and that also had an intact but rusty bayonet base. At the same time I bought the mascot I ordered a new repro bayonet piece from The Filling Station. Once everything showed up I started soaking the two base screws in penetrant. It took a week and a half for them to free up but both screws came our clean. I cannibalized another old cap for a decent gasket and put it all together yesterday. It fits great and adds a fancy touch to a plain car.. 

[Lahti35]

Looks great! Nice job on radiator cap, looks like its always been there....

[chistech]

Yes, 10-30w

[TexRiv_63]

20 hours ago, Bloo said:

 

 

I am no expert on this, but I strongly suspect that it would. My first car, an old Chevy, oiled the rods with squirt nozzles that shot across the oil pan. I defaulted to SAE 30 because I though the engine might be sort of tired. I was cautioned by an employer at a gas station job (who had a bunch of experience with old Chevys) that SAE 30 was too heavy, and the nozzles might not squirt far enough to reach the rod dippers when the oil is cold. The original recommendation was 20W, and 10W30 was a common substitute at that time.

 

I think your 1934 might be too old to have the squirt nozzles, but still oils with dippers and dip trays. A problem with dip tray oiling is that the dippers tend to scrape a trough through the oil, and if the oil is thick, at high rpm, it might not flow back down into position before the dipper comes around again, and the rods might starve. That is probably the reason for the squirt nozzles.

 

If it were me, today, I would ask Gene over on the VCCA forum, and do whatever he says.

 

According to the PO this engine does use the dipper and tray system, he had to have some that repaired due to rust damage when the engine was rebuilt. I will check it out on VCCA.

[TexRiv_63]

I have made a bit of progress on my sticky clutch issue. After speaking with Dave Sylvain at VCCA I tried something that at first sounded a bit weird. He thought part of the problem may be rust or debris on the flywheel / pressure plate from the long storage periods and little use. I blocked the front wheels, put the brake on, put it in second gear and gently slipped the clutch until the engine rpms dropped. I did this about four times, letting it cool in between, then a test drive - some improvement! I repeated the process again yesterday, took it for a longer test drive (Actual road driving for a few miles) - even more improvement. While the clutch still engages very high in the travel range and is still chattery, now at least I can slip it a bit and take off on a light grade. For normal flat driving I had to get used to taking off at idle speed which results in smooth engagement most of the time.

This morning I felt adventurous so I took it over to the local cars and coffee meets, around an 8 mile trip. I had scouted a route to avoid serious stoplight grades and it made the trip without incident. My many years without a prewar car required major re-education, especially with a non-synchro transmission. Now that I have driven it more it actually shifts very nicely as long as I am patient between gears, and it cruises quite nicely at about 40-45 tops. It is a bit jumpy and wobbly but has definitely improved since mounting the new tires.

My next step on the car will be to remove the floorboards and get into the clutch linkage and adjustment plus better inspection and lubrication of the suspension and steering linkage, including wirebrushing and oil-painting the leaf springs. I will post the details when I get into it. 

[chistech]

The 34’ has an early form of synchromesh trans on 2nd and 3rd. If you have to give it a lot of time between gears there’s a good chance the synchronizing rings or cones are bad, it will shift more like a straight gear trans if they are. I just rebuilt one for this 34’ pickup I’m working on an I used 3 tranny’s to make up one good tight one.this truck has a 35’ motor which is a different animal from the 34’ and I believe has a more sophisticated oiling system than the 34’.

[Roger Zimmermann]

Nice little car! Good luck with it.

[John_Mereness]

I am applying this discussion to PRESSURIZED  lubrication systems (so my best advise is to find the fellow in the club that drives 5K plus miles touring all over the united States) - Not to offend anyone regarding an oil discussion in general, but we are making oil in 15W-40 for prewar cars and the project now has involved countless Engineers (including a large group of Engineers involved in the racing industry). My general experience is 30's and earlier cars I put 30 weight in just have it blow it out the exhaust and/or leak it out of everywhere imaginable.  Also, some cars low oil pressure makes no difference - it is that you have some and continuous pressure and that all parts are receiving oil (a Franklin is sort of like this - the engine is running hotter and there are so many dissimilar metals matched to technology of the time - what is important is that you have some pressure and that it is continuous.    In a fresh rebuilt engine I generally do run 30 weight though.  https://inrccca.org/product/classic-car-motor-oil/   

[TexRiv_63]

2 hours ago, chistech said:

The 34’ has an early form of synchromesh trans on 2nd and 3rd. If you have to give it a lot of time between gears there’s a good chance the synchronizing rings or cones are bad, it will shift more like a straight gear trans if they are. I just rebuilt one for this 34’ pickup I’m working on an I used 3 tranny’s to make up one good tight one.this truck has a 35’ motor which is a different animal from the 34’ and I believe has a more sophisticated oiling system than the 34’.

According to the shop manual the Master model has the full synchro trans but the Standard model like mine has what they call a "Silent Second" trans, more like a Semi-synchro...Which type did you build?

[TexRiv_63]

1 hour ago, John_Mereness said:

I am applying this discussion to PRESSURIZED  lubrication systems (so my best advise is to find the fellow in the club that drives 5K plus miles touring all over the united States) - Not to offend anyone regarding an oil discussion in general, but we are making oil in 15W-40 for prewar cars and the project now has involved countless Engineers (including a large group of Engineers involved in the racing industry). My general experience is 30's and earlier cars I put 30 weight in just have it blow it out the exhaust and/or leak it out of everywhere imaginable.  Also, some cars low oil pressure makes no difference - it is that you have some and continuous pressure and that all parts are receiving oil (a Franklin is sort of like this - the engine is running hotter and there are so many dissimilar metals matched to technology of the time - what is important is that you have some pressure and that it is continuous.    In a fresh rebuilt engine I generally do run 30 weight though.  https://inrccca.org/product/classic-car-motor-oil/   

My engine has been rebuilt with about 5000 miles on it. Compared to the other prewar cars I have had it is almost leak free so I will be using straight 30W.

[TexRiv_63]

We have been blessed with really nice weather this week so I took the car out on Christmas eve and shot some better photos.

[keithb7]

That's a fine car! Great project and rarely seen. It has nice lines and look sporty and fun to drive. A great acquisition there.

[Roger Zimmermann]

I'm wondering if the black paint from the fenders was an inferior quality as the body; could be that the body had a repaint but the fenders not?

[Bloo]

Probably original. If it were a Pontiac, it's Fisher body would have a Duco (lacquer) paint job, but the fenders would be enamel unless you paid extra. I'll bet the same thing happened here.

[Roger Zimmermann]

That's a good explanation, thanks!

[TexRiv_63]

8 hours ago, Bloo said:

Probably original. If it were a Pontiac, it's Fisher body would have a Duco (lacquer) paint job, but the fenders would be enamel unless you paid extra. I'll bet the same thing happened here.

As far as I can tell all the paint is original. I was told the fenders and lower panels were enamel, possibly dipped rather than sprayed? Would that process have led to a thinner paint coat than the Duco sprayed body? Another contributing factor is this car being stored from 1952 until 2009, with 23 of those years barn storage most likely without a concrete floor.

[Bloo]

I would think enamel would be thicker. It could still age at a different rate.

[TexRiv_63]

Holiday cleanup and the flu bug hitting both me and my wife forced this poor car to sit untouched since December 28. I finally got back to it yesterday, drained the 15-40 oil from the PO and replaced it with Pennzoil straight 30 weight. After sitting for more than a month it started right up. This car amazes me in that it will start quickly with one pump of the pedal and just a little bit of choke, then wants the choke completely off right away. I give it a little bit of hand throttle but it warms up very quickly. I took it for a short drive to get a few gallons of fresh gas and it drove well although a bit rough until the tires warm up. I am getting more used to the clutch each time I drive it but will still need to work on the clutch linkage in the spring.

[zeke01]

What prompted you to go with straight 30 wt oil? Zeke 

[TexRiv_63]

20 hours ago, zeke01 said:

What prompted you to go with straight 30 wt oil? Zeke 

A number of long time owners over on VCCA including the 33-34 Tech Advisor for the club.

[zeke01]

5 hours ago, TexRiv_63 said:

A number of long time owners over on VCCA including the 33-34 Tech Advisor for the club.

Thanks for the response. Zeke

[keithb7]

I can't say why, but I am enamoured by this 34 Chev. I keep coming back to this thread to look at the photos and admire it. Yet I'm an old Mopar guy! The worn paint and body looks just right.  Just as you might expect it to look for an 86 year old car. Is that a rumble seat in the back or just a trunk? It appears that the spare tire may prevent it from opening. 

[TexRiv_63]

2 hours ago, keithb7 said:

I can't say why, but I am enamoured by this 34 Chev. I keep coming back to this thread to look at the photos and admire it. Yet I'm an old Mopar guy! The worn paint and body looks just right.  Just as you might expect it to look for an 86 year old car. Is that a rumble seat in the back or just a trunk? It appears that the spare tire may prevent it from opening. 

Thanks Keith. I see a lot of people posting photos of shiny new looking prewar cars on Facebook pages and calling them "original". I'm sure there are a few real originals like that out there but if you dig down most have been repainted, reupholstered and rebuilt somewhere along the way. The patina of this car confirms its actual originality and long storage which is what drew me to it. This DC Standard model was the low price leader in 1934 and was actually a carryover of the 1933 car while the all-new Master model was completely redesigned. It has a regular trunk, the rumble seat was not offered on the DC.

[Roger Zimmermann]

Still a lot of wood in those cars; to restore one, you must be able to work with sheet metal and wood! Are the brakes still mechanically operated or hydraulic?

[TexRiv_63]

12 hours ago, Roger Zimmermann said:

Still a lot of wood in those cars; to restore one, you must be able to work with sheet metal and wood! Are the brakes still mechanically operated or hydraulic?

The amount of wood in GM cars is why they are so rare compared to Fords. Luckily the original wood in this one is in excellent shape. The brakes are all mechanical 4-wheel, cable operated. 

[John S.]

The Chevrolet is in excellent shape.

[TexRiv_63]

It has taken me a month and a half but I am finally moving along on this car after being very lazy. Our current sheltering situation has helped since I can't go to the gym and have become an even worse couch potato, so I figured what better form of exercise than car work! I am a list guy so I put together a lengthy checklist consisting of all the items needed that involve under-car work, my hope is to combine all these in one long session. In preparation, I swept and cleaned up the forward section of my tandem 3-car garage to maximize working room. I taped a plastic drop cloth to the floor, primarily since one of my list items is painting the springs with oil which will definitely be messy. I then located the car to provide good access all around, with a car this small that is not a problem! 

Another thing I did was to look at the lighting in my garage, When I bought my house in 2000 I had a bunch of ceiling mounted outlets with two switched circuits installed into which I plugged nine 4 foot double tube fluorescent shop lights. This worked fine for a long time but now those 20 year old fixtures are less than ideal, going through bulbs too quickly and losing uniform brightness. I have thought about converting to LED for awhile but the price of new fixtures was pretty high. So recently I found a fairly inexpensive LED 4 footer at Costco and bought one to try it. I installed it today at the front of the garage which has been a dim spot, wow what a difference! The attached before and after photos don't show it well but It appears half again as bright as one of the fluorescent fixtures plus is supposed last 50,000 hours and use only 47 watts. I won't be doing it right away but I will plan to convert my whole garage over and possibly add a few additional fixtures.

[John S.]

TexRiv, that is a nice working space you have for yourself. Are those '60 Buick hubcaps in the corner? 

[TexRiv_63]

18 hours ago, John S. said:

TexRiv, that is a nice working space you have for yourself. Are those '60 Buick hubcaps in the corner? 

They are, I used those on my 63 Starfire for a long time as I could not find any period Olds 15" caps.

[keiser31]

Do you still need the Starfire wheel covers?

[Laughing Coyote]

1 hour ago, keiser31 said:

Do you still need the Starfire wheel covers?

I don't think they will fit your Dodge Keiser.

[keiser31]

5 minutes ago, Laughing Coyote said:

I don't think they will fit your Dodge Keiser.

I think I have some Starfire wheel covers for TexRiv in my pile....

[TexRiv_63]

22 hours ago, keiser31 said:

I think I have some Starfire wheel covers for TexRiv in my pile....

 

I have a set of those which I will eventually be selling on Ebay. My car came with the PO-3 option covers with the heavy diecast centers, they went with the car along with the original 14" wheels.

[TexRiv_63]

I have a gear lube question regarding my 34. The owners manual calls for SAE 160 oil in both the transmission and rear axle and I have been told that 600W "Model T" oil is the same as 160. Is this true? If not true what is the modern equivalent of 1934 SAE 160? I think the 140 GL-4 I have in the trans now is still too thin.

[Bloo]

Well as I understand it, 600w is steam cylinder oil, and in the early days of the car was a thick oil that was readily available and OK for lubricating gears. "600w" did not refer to the viscosity, and may have been the flash point of the oil in Fahrenheit (or not). It also might not have been primarily petroleum oil. Today 600w is a trademark of Mobil oil, who sell 4 different viscosities of steam cylinder oil, two of them under the "600w" trademark.

 

In the mid 30s SAE 160 started to be recommended in cars, including designs that had recommended 600w a year or two before. I suspect the difference was that SAE 160 was petroleum and intended mainly for gears. I cant prove it. SAE numbers for viscosity are not exact viscosities, but a range. Since SAE 160 is no longer a standard, it could be pretty hard to nail down, because no data seems to be available, and because any SAE standard now would be a different range, meaning some of them might hit the 160 range (whatever it was) and some might not. Current standards are SAE 140 and SAE 250.

 

IIRC someone on VCCA researched this and claims old SAE 160 oil falls a lot closer to SAE 250 than SAE 140. He identified an oil, Lubriplate spo-277 I think it was, that he claims is equivalent to SAE 160, and works better in early Chevy Synchromesh transmissions than current 600w or SAE 140. Some other members were skeptical. I doubt you have synchromesh. It would be thicker than the SAE 140 for sure. Probably not as thick as 600w. YMMV.

 

 

Edited April 4, 2020 by Bloo (see edit history)

[Lahti35]

On 4/2/2020 at 5:17 PM, TexRiv_63 said:

It has taken me a month and a half but I am finally moving along on this car after being very lazy. Our current sheltering situation has helped since I can't go to the gym and have become an even worse couch potato, so I figured what better form of exercise than car work! I am a list guy so I put together a lengthy checklist consisting of all the items needed that involve under-car work, my hope is to combine all these in one long session. In preparation, I swept and cleaned up the forward section of my tandem 3-car garage to maximize working room. I taped a plastic drop cloth to the floor, primarily since one of my list items is painting the springs with oil which will definitely be messy. I then located the car to provide good access all around, with a car this small that is not a problem! 

Another thing I did was to look at the lighting in my garage, When I bought my house in 2000 I had a bunch of ceiling mounted outlets with two switched circuits installed into which I plugged nine 4 foot double tube fluorescent shop lights. This worked fine for a long time but now those 20 year old fixtures are less than ideal, going through bulbs too quickly and losing uniform brightness. I have thought about converting to LED for awhile but the price of new fixtures was pretty high. So recently I found a fairly inexpensive LED 4 footer at Costco and bought one to try it. I installed it today at the front of the garage which has been a dim spot, wow what a difference! The attached before and after photos don't show it well but It appears half again as bright as one of the fluorescent fixtures plus is supposed last 50,000 hours and use only 47 watts. I won't be doing it right away but I will plan to convert my whole garage over and possibly add a few additional fixtures.

Looks great... nice and bright! I've been considering LED replacements as my florescent bulbs go bad... getting pretty dim in the shop so I can't put it off too much longer! 

[TexRiv_63]

19 hours ago, Lahti35 said:

Looks great... nice and bright! I've been considering LED replacements as my florescent bulbs go bad... getting pretty dim in the shop so I can't put it off too much longer! 

My problem too, I keep replacing bulbs but they don't last long and their brightness varies - I think the 20 year old ballasts are going.

[TexRiv_63]

20 hours ago, Bloo said:

Well as I understand it, 600w is steam cylinder oil, and in the early days of the car was a thick oil that was readily available and OK for lubricating gears. "600w" did not refer to the viscosity, and may have been the flash point of the oil in Fahrenheit (or not). It also might not have been primarily petroleum oil. Today 600w is a trademark of Mobil oil, who sell 4 different viscosities of steam cylinder oil, two of them under the "600w" trademark.

 

In the mid 30s SAE 160 started to be recommended in cars, including designs that had recommended 600w a year or two before. I suspect the difference was that SAE 160 was petroleum and intended mainly for gears. I cant prove it. SAE numbers for viscosity are not exact viscosities, but a range. Since SAE 160 is no longer a standard, it could be pretty hard to nail down, because no data seems to be available, and because any SAE standard now would be a different range, meaning some of them might hit the 160 range (whatever it was) and some might not. Current standards are SAE 140 and SAE 250.

 

IIRC someone on VCCA researched this and claims old SAE 160 oil falls a lot closer to SAE 250 than SAE 140. He identified an oil, Lubriplate spo-277 I think it was, that he claims is equivalent to SAE 160, and works better in early Chevy Synchromesh transmissions than current 600w or SAE 140. Some other members were skeptical. I doubt you have synchromesh. It would be thicker than the SAE 140 for sure. Probably not as thick as 600w. YMMV.

 

 

Thanks Bloo. My 34 Standard has what is called a "silent second" transmission which I think is a poor man's synchro but not a real synchro. When I switched from the 85W-90 the PO had to the 140 the shifting improved but could still be better, plus it leaks from the torque ball. I have an old quart of Lubriplate SPO-299 plus about a quart of 600W from my 28 Pierce Arrow, the SPO-299 was advertised as a 600W substitute. I assume all modern oils are petroleum based, is that true? I may try it in the transmission when I remove the floorboards as it will be easier to pour that thick stuff from above.

 

Another question - does gear lube go bad with age? The stuff I have is from 2010 or 2011...

[Bloo]

It's all petroleum now, as far as I know. I would have no problem using gear oil from 2010.

Edited April 5, 2020 by Bloo (see edit history)

[chistech]

You can get 600W from the filling station. My nickname, “buffalo snot”!