1926 Buick Master 7 Passenger Model 50 - changed over to a downdraft carb?

[jrj2]

    Good Morning,     I am currently working on a 1926 Buick Standard (nice parade car) to get it running again. Yesterday, I was told that the owner would prefer it changed over to a downdraft carb for reliability and simplicity. Personally, I have always been partial to Carter carburetors and see that they were used on a number of early applications. There is also a 1927 Buick Master that I intend to do a duplicate conversion. They are both wonderful vehicles and I intend to pack up all of the parts that come off, to be saved for if the next owner wants to return these to original. Anyway, the more I research the more confused I become. Looking for some good advise and direction. I am running really short on time before our local parade.             So glad to be here among so many people to learn from ---   jrj2

 

[RansomEli]

If you are facing a deadline, then the safest course would be to get the Buick running with its current carburetor. If you replace the carb with a downdraft and then have starting problems, how do you know where the problem lies - was it something original to the car or something you did?

 

Get it to work, then get it to work better.

 

[alsancle]

Before doing a thing read this thread.   There is no reason to convert it.     The guys arguing against it are the smartest ones on the forum.

 

 

[jrj2]

Thank-you. This was my original intention.  These cars are way before my time, but I simply enjoy mechanical stuff because it makes sense to me. These early vehicles were pretty simple by design (that and I really do prefer to leave a vehicle as "original", as I can, when it is fairly unmolested). I will use this comment to persuade the owner to let me continue to remedy what is there.

 

                                               --- jrj2

[jrj2]

Good morning,      Staying with the original Marvel, I got the car running yesterday !   I have a bit of "dialing in" to do but I was pretty excited once it was up and running by itself. Supposedly, it had not run in a couple of years. Today's first agenda is to check the radiator before I go any further. Am I correct in assuming that the coolant should be the old green antifreeze ?     Thanx.

[Robert Engle]

I would start with just plain water.  Let the engine come to temperature and use an infrared thermometer to check for hot and cold spots on the engine and radiator core.  If it shows uniform temps, drain the system and then add your green antifreeze.  On the open systems, I run just water until fall and then add the antifreeze for the winter.  

 

Just my preference.

 

Bob Engle

[Hubert_25-25]

jrjr2,  I have updated my Marvel rebuilding procedure.  If you are in a hurry to get the carburetor operating, you can file on the Marvel Venturi as a temporary fix, but your smart move is to replace the venturi.  As you go thru the procedure, you will see that there are several areas that need to be addressed to put the Marvel back in good working order.  If you would prefer to mail it to me, PM me.  Attached is a link to access the procedure.  It is the file Carburetor - Marvel - Rebuilding.  I personally think you are much further ahead to fix all the issues in the Marvel than to replace it.   Congratulations on getting the Buick running.   One more item.  Does the spark advance on the steering wheel cause the distributor housing to rotate to both ends of the slot that is located on the back side of the distributor housing?  Does it rotate easily.         Hugh  

 

https://brassbuicks.groups.io/g/PBR/files

[Old26Buick]

I have changed to down draft on my 26 and my27 Buicks, Never ran so good. Used a 41 Chev 1 barrell carb, Did away with vacumn tank, Electric fuel pump near tank and fuel pressure regulator on firewall used about 3 psi. Never have had to use the choke.  Good luck

Steve

[jrj2]

Thank-you so very much for the inputs. I find the cumulative knowledge in this forum an incredible resource. I do like the idea of the 1 barrel carb from the '41 Chevy, idea. Perhaps after the parade. I am moving forward with this '26 using the Marvel. I have overcome some fuel leaks and two miss firing cylinders. I was not the one that rebuilt the carburetor, but after re-adjusting the fuel level in the bowl the thing works pretty well. Today's dilemma that I have not overcome is that I have a hit & miss leak of raw gas that will drip from the neck just in front of the air filter fan. This has me perplexed as to why ?  Something inside the rebuild on the carburetor not right ?  I only have one set of new gaskets left for these early Marvels and it is for the "27. I need this one to use for patterns to make more since Bob's has no more kits. Any & all tips would be great. 

[Hubert_25-25]

I make all my own gaskets for my Marvel carburetors.  Just get gasket paper of the same thickness to what is in the kit.  You can get gasket paper at your local auto parts store.  Take a hammer and tap it gently on the gasket paper on the metal edge of the part you are trying to cut out.  Keep the paper in one spot without moving it.  Just a little light pressure also works well enough to leave a line so you know where to cut with a pair of scissors.  

 

Buy a leather punch and a 1/4" paper punch for making holes.  I am sure there are some you tube videos on gasket paper.

 

When I first rebuilt my Marvel, I did lap the fuel valve and it leaked a little at first.  I would shut off the line between the carburetor and the vacuum tank when parked.  After driving the car for a while the dripping stopped.  

I also think the Marvel is a good carburetor if you do all the repairs outlined in the rebuild procedure.  If you are dead set on a carburetor change out.  Consider a Carter BB-1 which is an updraft as it may require less modification than doing a down draft.  Glad to hear that you are making progress.

Hugh   

[jrj2]

I had the manifolds off, recently, to deal with exhaust leaks. I did fine with making my own gaskets and alignments but discovered that the exhaust manifold does not match the ports on the head. The I.D # on the block is 1573957 and the number on the head is 189052-5. Is this an original motor and someone simply made a different manifold fit (it is pretty obvious that the manifold has been modified). I am not even sure where or how to search for a replacement exhaust manifold. I am so close to getting this thing back out to cruising the town. Any inputs would be greatly appreciated.

[Hubert_25-25]

189052 is a 1926-1927 Master Cylinder block assembly.   

1926 Standard engine number starts with 143950 and ends with 1691750

1926 Master engine number starts with 1456915 and ends with 1691750

 

What is the block casting number, the cylinder head number, and the exhaust and intake casting numbers?

 

Not sure what gaskets you made, but the manifold gasket is not normally a make at home gasket.  That is one that I would get from Olsons Gaskets.

Hugh

 

[dibarlaw]

Also make sure the intake and exhaust manifolds are flat and in the same plane. But if things have been modified????

 We would like to see pictures of this manifold modification. It could be the key to all your issues.

Edited July 5, 2021 by dibarlaw (see edit history)

[jrj2]

Good morning,    I had made gaskets like I have done for headers in the past. I use a piece of 1 1/2" angle iron for a straight edge and got the manifolds into proper alignment. The number off the block is 191770. I have got the manifolds back off of the car and have got some pictures to share. When I placed the straight edge across the top of the ports, the exaust port on each end of the manifold was 5/16" higher than the rest rather than being in the same straight line. Things to make me go "Hmmmmm".

[Hubert_25-25]

First of all, start a new thread if you are doing a different car.  This is a Master Engine.  Is there a Master engine in your Standard car?  Almost nothing on a Standard fits a Master.  

 

I assume the 191770 is from the metal tag which is the engine number and not the casting number.  This says a 1927 Master. 

 

That manifold is way out.   I would get another one.  Also if you are making exhaust gaskets, they either need to be the sandwiched type with metal on the outside and a bunch of perforations in the metal, or copper exterior like you get from Olsons.  Anything else won't hold up.  

 

Hugh

 

Edited July 8, 2021 by Hubert_25-25 (see edit history)

[dibarlaw]

That was my same comment... All this time we think he is dealing with a Standard... The 1926 exhaust manifold is the same part # as for my 1925 Master #187698. 

My 1925 Master 6 manifold matches all the head ports.

1927, 1928, 1929 and 1930 all have different part numbers. I am not sure if the 1928 or 1929s had this exhaust kick up on the manifold end ports.

 

[critterpainter]

I could not tell if the bosses that the manifold washers seat on are on the same plane or not. That could cause torque issues when bolting the manifolds to the head.

    I have not seen a stainless water manifold in a few years!

[dibarlaw]

I got the last one Josef had done. (it may have been his first trial one) What a miserable job on getting it to fit. It was 5/8"lower in the front than original.

Mounting holes needed opened up to match the mounting studs.

The feet were not in the same plane and took some surfacing to get the unit flat. Also the interior connecting welds were very scabby and the punched holes were off on 2 legs about 1/4 the I.D. of the openings.

   

                                                                               After 1/2 hour of grinding.

Wore out 3 or 4 grinding stones on a flexible shaft to open them up.

 The good news is that I gave Roger McGinnis my original to replicate.

He has done a fantastic job in his (authentic construction)new examples in copper. I wish I had waited.

[jrj2]

Wow !     No, this is the same car that I have been working on for the last month. There is a '27 Master here in the same garage (considerably larger car) but I have not posted anything about that one. The #191770 is cast into the lower side of the block relatively in the middle of the passenger side of the engine. The Metal tag on the driver side of the motor is 1573957. The number cast on the upper portion of the block on the driver side is 189052-5. The gasket material that I had used is the metal faced perforated kind but not copper. 

   So, I am interpreting that this motor is a conglomeration that some one put together ?  I am told that the motor was supposed to have been rebuilt some 20 years ago. I am pretty good at mechanical stuff because that is what makes most sense to my brains. Although, this car is 30 years older than I am and I am figuring this out as I go. My task has been to get this car up & running again and it has been a multitude of contributing challenges, so far. I did look up Olson's Gaskets and was pretty impressed. They are over here near my corner of the world. I will order the proper manifold gaskets from them.

    I so appreciate your inputs, way lots, and I will get this thing back on the road to show off it's former glory.

[Hubert_25-25]

The engine metal tag says that it is 1926.  These tags can be removed and reinstalled.

Here is where it gets interesting. 

189052 is the cylinder block assembly for 1926/27 Master.  1898040 is the cylinder block assembly for a 1926/27 Standard.  You have 189052 (-5 is the casting run).

I cannot find 191770.  191771 is the number for the 1926 Std 6 "upper crankcase assembly"

It is difficult to see the numbers on the exhaust manifold, and I am not sure if you can find them on the intake manifold.  What casting number is on the cylinder head?  

Hugh

[Rod Wise]

Jrj2

 Firstly, Can you post some pictures of the car, so we know what your working on. A picture of the dash and measure the wheelbase to see if it is the 120"  or the 128" wheelbase chassis. 

[jrj2]

Good morning,    I am quite sure there have been many fingers to have played with these cars over 90 some years. To come across an unmolested 90 year old car would be flat exciting. I could find no numbers on either manifold when I had the  assembly all apart. Where is the number stamped on the head ?  I will go get some pictures and measurements of the car, tomorrow. I do like challenges and this is proving to be a good one for my storybook.

[Hubert_25-25]

The number on the head is on the top side of the head by the manifolds

[jrj2]

    I was over to get some pictures, yesterday, and we measured the wheelbases of all four of the cars. Of the Buick's through 1929,am I right that all of the 128" wheelbases are Masters and the 120" wheelbases are Standards ?  This one that I am working on is 128". There is a 1930 Buick (that I will work on last) that is 132". Would that one also be a Master ?   Anyway, here are pictures of the one that I am working on.

[Oregon Desert model 45]

Standard wb = 114"

Master wb is 120" and 128" both powered by same motor. 

To identify Master or Standard from photos:

Master has a hole through the bottom of the radiator shell for the hand crank ; Standard crank hole is below the radiator shell

Master rear wheel has 6 acorn nuts on the rear wheel hub ; Standard has 12 carriage bolt heads on rear wheel hub.

Master motor has a 3 pipe hot water return manifold attaching to top of the head ; Standard has a single return pipe exiting the front of the head.

Master instruments are slightly oval shape with Buick widow's peak at top; Standard has round instruments with oval choke/heat control plate. 

Kevin 

 

[dibarlaw]

128" WB would make this a 7 passenger model 50 Master.

[jrj2]

This project sure is turning out to be a good learning experience to add to my skills list. Searching for 90 year old parts is a challenge to say the least. Here is a picture of the location (low on the passenger side) of the 191770 casting number. I do not recognize what the following symbol might be.

[Hubert_25-25]

Certain casting numbers do not show in the big book of parts.  I added this one to casting number 198334 which may have been the one most used.  I do know that for the transmissions, the casting numbers do not match what is in the book, so I have pencilled in numbers there as well.    

Since you have several Buicks, this would be a good start for understanding items that need to be sorted.      Hugh

 

Edited July 15, 2021 by Hubert_25-25 (see edit history)

[Hubert_25-25]

jrj2

    Your Buick looks great.  It just occurred to me after seeing Morgan's posting that you may be missing the manifold pilots.  They are simply a ring of steel used to locate the intake manifold in the 3 places on the head.  My standard has them.  For your Master they are part number 166247.   1924 6 cylinder thru 1930 series 50 and 60.  They are also shown in my intake manifold.

 

Also, Please change the title of your thread from Standard to Master.  It is confusing now that we are past that issue.

Hugh 

   

Edited July 17, 2021 by Hubert_25-25 (see edit history)

[jrj2]

Too cool !   I would have never figured out the missing manifold pilots. Where might I find such a thing ? Or do I have to have them made ?

[Hubert_25-25]

They may be easier to make than to find, but perhaps someone has dimensions.  They won't take a lot to fabricate.  I thought they may have been tempered a little to make them stay in place with a little spring tension.  That could be done with mild steel I believe if you quenched it, but you would have to look that one up.   Thanks for changing the title.  Hugh

[dibarlaw]

jrj2:

 Note that hugh shows the pilots only on the intake manifold. Our Standard pilot bores are 1/3/8". My 1925 Master pilot bores are 1 5/8". "Bob's" shows catalog Pilot Ring # MP-362 for 1925-30 Master series at $3.25 each. The exhaust manifold is not counterbored for the pilot rings. The exhaust manifold expands and contracts at a greater rate making pilots impractial. Many use a graphite paste to coat the exhaust sections of the gasket set before installing to allow them to move a bit.

[jrj2]

Good morning,     I got the gaskets, I had ordered, from Olson's Gaskets. I am way impressed. They  are everything that I had hoped they would be. I am so glad you guys pointed me in that direction. A five star recommendation to anyone that has a need for resto gaskets!

[jrj2]

    I'm still working on this thing. Finding an exhaust manifold has been quite a challenge. I did get another one yesterday. It is much closer than what I have but still not quite right to suit me. Of the few that I have come across, they do seem to vary quite a bit. Were production standards pretty loose back then ?   Why am I seeing so much variance in them ?  The ports on the motor are all in a straight line but the manifolds that I have come across all vary from that straight line. Has anyone out there had any good experiences with welding on one of these exhaust manifolds ?  I am not good enough to want to take on casting my own manifold, so I am contemplating whether or not to attempt to cut, grind, manipulate & weld one of these manifolds that I have. Thanks for your inputs.

 

                                                                       John

[michealbernal]

Considering that these manifolds have been heated and cooled a tremendous number of times in the past almost 100 years it is not surprising that they are "warped'.  You might consider taking it to and automotive machine shop and having them take a light cut off of it with the sander they use to resurface cylinder heads.  This would true up the sealing surfaces.  Careful not to go too deep and destroy the sealing ring relief.

Cast iron manifolds can be welded but it requires a experienced welder to get it correct.  The parts have to be preheated and cooled very slowly.  If I were going to do it I would build a jig to hold the parts in correct alignment prior to doing any welding.

Remember that you are dealing with almost 100 year old cast iron that may have the consistency of egg shells.

[Hubert_25-25]

JRJ2.  

    Looking at the side of your cylinder head, all exhaust ports show signs of leaking.   That looks like the problem is more related to poor gasket choice and likely that the flange bolts were never retightened over time.  There is also likely some amount of flexing that occurs to the exhaust manifold during the bolting process, given the length of the manifold.  You may be looking for more trouble if you try surfacing these old manifolds.  I would use the straightest manifold you have.  Use Olsons gaskets, install the intake rings, purchase brass nuts for the manifold studs, and use antiseize on the threads.  Worst case you only lost the value of a gasket set if it does not seal.  

 

Hugh 

  

[dibarlaw]

As michaelbernal and Hugh have indicated. Also from my previous post.

jrj2:

 Note that Hugh shows the pilots are only on the intake manifold. Our Standard pilot bores are 1/3/8". My 1925 Master pilot bores are 1 5/8". "Bob's" shows catalog Pilot Ring # MP-362 for 1925-30 Master series at $3.25 each. The exhaust manifold is not counterbored for the pilot rings. The exhaust manifold expands and contracts at a greater rate making pilots impractial. Many use a graphite paste to coat the exhaust sections of the gasket set before installing to allow them to move a bit.

 Again, important to have the manifolds surfaced as a unit. Both Intake and exhust to maintin all ports being in the same plane. I have used new studs and stainless nuts as well as brass nuts on one of my cars. The addition of anti-sieze compounds tends to have things loosten up after a hard run. Requiring things to be retightened often. I retorque my manifold nuts before I start the car while the engine is cold. (Make sure you have the correct style Bellville washers. My Standard had a hodgepodge of washers which required shimming to make good contact since the exhaust and intake flanges were different thicknesses.)