Jump to content

1917 vs. 1918 E-49


Morgan Wright

Recommended Posts

I believe that the first one is either an aftermarket or/replacement from another car for a lost grease cup on a Buick. 

 

The second style is the only type that I have seen on any of my cars and I have several and looked at many more of that vintage. 

 

I do have some of the first type that I have purchased when I purchased a box of them a few years ago.

Edited by Larry Schramm (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Ben P. said:

The first one with the tab on top is listed and pictured in the parts-book for the 1918 4-cyl models as No. 000 - part number: 1523.

4 of them were used on the steering knuckles, 4 more on the front spring shackles and various other places. They match what is on my car.

 

(I lent out my original parts-book, so the picture below is from a poor xerox copy. BTW, these parts-books are a major PITA. They very carefully illustrate each part only once - but there is NO rhyme or reason as to WHERE they chose to illustrate it. Rarely does the illustration appear with the first listing of a multiple use part.)

7E5F5AB0-92FD-4DFE-B9FB-54948B381474.jpeg

 

News to me.  Learn something new every day.  Still have not seen one on any of my vehicles.

Edited by Larry Schramm (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Terry Dunham's "The Buick A Complete History" had 2 authors, the first edition of the book came out in 1980, before the April 1998 edition of the Bugle which I uploaded above, in which Terry Dunham himself and another author published how they discovered the E-49 was originally a 1917 model, I don't know why he wasn't able to correct that error in the next 6 editions of his book, or when he died, or what the other author or publisher did to prevent the correction in later edietions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ben P. said:

An old house recently slipped through my fingers to a flipper because I couldn’t find an attorney willing to take on the Historic District Commission.

Open and shut case - I wanted to demolish a hideous 1950’s ‘modern’ addition some hyena slapped onto a masterfully built 1860 gabled Italianate. Made it look like an airport tower. For two years that house sat on the market and for two years I couldn’t get an attorney to take those buzzards on. Now, you’d think the ‘historic commission’ would be for returning the structure to its original state.

Ben, I trust you remember the "remuddling" page in Old House Journal....fortunately it was the last page before the back cover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ben P. said:

 

So what does the title say? 🙃

Lastly, what does the title say?

Let us know how it goes with New York State changing it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

State titles are a different story. We are talking about model years according to contemporary Buick literature. But the title was 1917 and still is. Here is a pic with you in the background.

.

title.jpg

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MrEarl said:

Finally took the time to read the Bugle article by Mac Blair you uploaded above Morgan. I find it fascinating that you actually own a '17 E-49, the subject of his article. Perhaps a few pictures of it could be added here.

 

Most E-49's are 1917. To be exact, 10,505 of them. There were only 5,643 in the 1918 model year. This adds up to 16,148 figure that Buick gave in 1943 when they lumped them together. These figures come from the Buick literature from the teens that I loaded above. But here's a couple of pics anyway:

.

DSCN2775.JPG

DSCN2800.JPG

DSCN2770.JPG

DSCN2778.JPG

Edited by Morgan Wright (see edit history)
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Ben P.
1 hour ago, Morgan Wright said:

 

 

State titles are a different story. We are talking about model years according to contemporary Buick literature. But the title was 1917 and still is. Here is a pic with you in the background.

.

title.jpg

Well there it is then.

Registration at least, and state registration would never contradict the title itself so there you have it. An indisputable 1917 E-49.

(Why did you not answer that question the 20 other times I asked it every time this came up in the last year and a half?)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...