Old Car Wives Tales

[old-tank]

On 1/24/2022 at 8:09 AM, Brass is Best said:

On 1/24/2022 at 8:08 AM, Andy J said:

Did anyone mention putting clothes pins on the fuel line to stop vapor lock?

That works.

Where are you putting the clothes pins?  Vapor lock occurs on the suction side of the fuel pump.  Any pump can push fuel and vapor, but is inefficient at pulling.  Clothes pins between the fuel pump and carburetor are useless.

[CHuDWah]

I wonder if the Model T backing uphill tales, if true, have more to do with gearing than gas feed?  The considerably higher (numerically) reverse ratio would provide more torque which could be helpful on steep grades.

[Bloo]

That could be part of it. Not all model Ts are created equal either. A lot of them have the gas tank under the front seat, and gravity feed only to an updraft carburetor. That was not unusual in the era. I have a 1913 Studebaker that is set up the same way. It is not out of the question on some ludicrous grade like the one I posted to have the carburetor higher than the gas in the tank. In that case, if the hill is short enough to get over on the gas already in the carburetor bowl, no problem. One period solution is to pressurize the tank. My Studebaker is not set up for that, nor are Ford T's as originally delivered.

 

How do you fix that? A period solution is to put the gas tank up high and forward in the cowl. There is more elevation difference, and it is less affected by angle as well. Some later teens Studebakers did this, Hupmobile 32, K, and N, the "Improved" model t of 1926-27, the Model A Ford, and whole bunch of others.

 

 

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

[Brass is Best]

2 hours ago, old-tank said:

Where are you putting the clothes pins?  Vapor lock occurs on the suction side of the fuel pump.  Any pump can push fuel and vapor, but is inefficient at pulling.  Clothes pins between the fuel pump and carburetor are useless.

All I know is that it works.

[carbking]

Not going to argue about the Model T. Have never driven one, only know what my Dad told me. So my original post about this was "hearsay" from my Dad (he was a pretty sharp dude).

 

One other carburetor myth that I have not yet seen in this thread but may have missed:

 

"Used to tune my Stromberg 97 by drilling out the jets, soldering them closed and then drilling until I got the tune just right".

 

Right, the friction of the gasoline would have eroded all of the soft solder like the Missouri River erodes dikes within a mile!

 

Jon

[wayne sheldon]

12 hours ago, CHuDWah said:

I wonder if the Model T backing uphill tales, if true, have more to do with gearing than gas feed?  The considerably higher (numerically) reverse ratio would provide more torque which could be helpful on steep grades.

 

I have been playing with model T Fords since I was in high school. Owned and driven a driven a dozen of them. I have had several chassis sitting in my garage or driveway. And I have held the straight edge (or whatever?) between the carburetor and gasoline tank on a few occasions. The steepness required for putting the carburetor above the gasoline level is not all that much.

And I have backed model Ts up short hills on several occasions. As have others on some of the same hills.

 

Before the Stewart Warner vacuum tank became a practical alternative? Hundreds of makes of cars used gasoline tanks under the seat and gravity to deliver the gasoline to the carburetor.

[CHuDWah]

12 hours ago, wayne sheldon said:

 

I have been playing with model T Fords since I was in high school. Owned and driven a driven a dozen of them. I have had several chassis sitting in my garage or driveway. And I have held the straight edge (or whatever?) between the carburetor and gasoline tank on a few occasions. The steepness required for putting the carburetor above the gasoline level is not all that much.

And I have backed model Ts up short hills on several occasions. As have others on some of the same hills.

 

Before the Stewart Warner vacuum tank became a practical alternative? Hundreds of makes of cars used gasoline tanks under the seat and gravity to deliver the gasoline to the carburetor.

My playing has been limited to Model A and newer, so I'll defer to those with T experience as to uphill gas starvation.  Note I said if it's true - never said it isn't.  Nevertheless, backing uphill using the numerically higher reverse ratio would provide more torque.  That could be helpful to a 20-HP engine on steep grades, as well as solving any fuel feed issue.

[wayne sheldon]

No worries CHuDWah, no criticism meant from me. Model As are a lot of fun also! A lot of my best friends have them. I even had one for a short while about fifty years ago.

 

The steering geometry of a model T Ford does not like to go backwards for more than a few feet. I don't know if this could come under the heading of an "old wives tale" or not? Some say that Henry made the reverse gear very low because backing up at any more than about two miles per hour was actually dangerous.

 

How is that for a segue back to "on topic"?

[oldcarfudd]

I have a '14 Model T and a '12 Buick, each with 10-gallon tanks under the front seat gravity-feeding to an updraft carburetor.  I drive them in PA, NJ, MD, VA, WV and all over New England.  If I get down to 3 gallons in the T and maybe 4 in the Buick, I'm still sorta-kinda OK - barely.  In these parts, I can always find gas long before the tank gets that low.  With at least half a tank, I can almost climb a tree.

[Fleetwood Meadow]

So let’s put this to rest already because not everyone cares so much about Model A’s and T’s and are more interested in the topic that the original poster stated. If you want to talk about a car going up a hill create another thread. Almost 2 pages about whether a car can or cannot go up a hill. Come on folks..

[Fleetwood Meadow]

Sorry, didn’t mean to stop this thread. I just thought if we could get back to the original topic the thread would be better. 

[wayne sheldon]

There are so many myths, legends, and wives tales about model T Fords, I hesitate to mention them. Most of the really untrue ones have been sufficiently debunked in recent decades that they are hardly worth mentioning anymore.

Between Linda's dental surgery, my 91 year old mother breaking her foot, the record breaking winter storm, 12 day power outage, almost no internet for a full month? I have been trying to think of some non-Ford wives tales myself but so far have failed to think of any myself.

I would love to read some interesting bits of legend and lore about other cars!

[28 Chrysler]

High octane fuel burns quicker and hotter than the cheap low octane fuels so you get better performance and mileage.

[NigelPearson]

On 1/23/2022 at 8:38 AM, Terry Harper said:

A rich fuel mixture will cause an engine to run cooler. Its actually the opposite.

 

Um, what????    Are you saying you think rich mixture doesn't cool?    Are you sure about that?

Liquid in the charge cools the air.   Lean mixture can burn through the top of racing motor pistons. 
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air–fuel_ratio_meter :
"Lean mixtures burn hotter and may cause rough idle, hard starting and stalling, and can even damage the catalytic converter, or burn valves in the engine. The risk of spark knock/engine knocking (detonation) is also increased when the engine is under load."

 

 

 

P.S. Myths. On a gravel road, holding your finger or knuckle up to the windscreen when another car goes past you. Meant to prevent the windscreen shattering!

Edited January 29, 2022 by NigelPearson (see edit history)

[oldford]

The whine coming from the passenger's side of the car is NOT your wife...  Whoo, am I in trouble now...

 

Frank

Edited January 29, 2022 by oldford (see edit history)

[8E45E]

One light a cigarette at the beam convergence point in a Woodlite headlight!

 

Craig

[Dynaflash8]

On 1/22/2022 at 6:27 PM, avgwarhawk said:

The engine is worn out at 50k miles. 

Riduculous.  You're talking about the old flat head 6.  The Slant 6 was known to be one of the toughest engines on the market for years.

 

[avgwarhawk]

9 minutes ago, Dynaflash8 said:

Riduculous.  You're talking about the old flat head 6.  The Slant 6 was known to be one of the toughest engines on the market for years.

 

 

Talking about the 40's-60's where many thought at 50k the car was worn out. Some idea that was picked up decades prior. The cars never saw 100k.   We know many go 100k plus.   

Edited January 31, 2022 by avgwarhawk (see edit history)

[jordyStepho]

On 1/24/2022 at 5:07 PM, Mark Gregush said:

?

What's the confusion, it's basic chemistry, oxygen is hyper reactive, moisture is a solvent, moisture on concrete and oxygen in the air make tires degrade faster, so it depends how they're stored, obviously wrapped tires will last much longer.

Sorry I wasn't more clear with my post.

[Dynaflash8]

7 hours ago, jordyStepho said:

What's the confusion, it's basic chemistry, oxygen is hyper reactive, moisture is a solvent, moisture on concrete and oxygen in the air make tires degrade faster, so it depends how they're stored, obviously wrapped tires will last much longer.

Sorry I wasn't more clear with my post.

Old tires, now called bias ply would last until you wore them sooth.  One question I have, is are bias tires the same as the old Rayon and Nylon tires?  I don't think so.  They don't ride as well or wear as long.  Changing the subject I move to radial tires, thought to be so safe.  Yes, they trail the grooves better and the wear tread less, but in 7-9 years they are dangerous for ply-separation and blow out.  And, when or if they do blow out they can take a fender off.  So, tell me, what tire is safer?  Do we have any choice?  I've been driving since 1954 and I'm 83 yeas old and I've tried them all.  Something is different about a "modern" bias tire than from an oldtime tire in the 1950's and 1960's.  I just don't know what.  Radial tire scare me once they're seven years old.  So tell me again how safe they are.

[oldford]

19 minutes ago, Dynaflash8 said:

Changing the subject I move to radial tires, thought to be so safe.  Yes, they trail the grooves better and the wear tread less, but in 7-9 years they are dangerous for ply-separation and blow out.

Not to be argumentative, but can you show me the data that supports a statement like this? Sure, we've all seen the statements that tires SHOULD be replaced after 10 years, but to say they are dangerous for ply separation and blow out may be over the top. With all of the miles I have driven since radials came to be here in the States (and I most likely have fewer miles than most) I've never had a blow-out. Flats, yes, blow-outs never.

 

Frank

[Roger Zimmermann]

The bias-ply tires on my '56 Biarritz are almost 30 years old; I will replace them this Spring against radial tires. The tires on my 2011 Cadillac DTS are now 11 years old. I will replace them maybe this year because they are getting difficult to balance. I'm still driving them at 75 - 85 miles/hour without bad thinking. I have to say that the DTS is stored in a garage without light. It seems that UV are bad for tires.

[8E45E]

The rear end of 1959 Chevrolets at speeds greater than 80mph lift off the ground because of the design of the tailfins.

 

Craig

[Marty Roth]

On 2/1/2022 at 6:27 AM, oldford said:

Not to be argumentative, but can you show me the data that supports a statement like this? Sure, we've all seen the statements that tires SHOULD be replaced after 10 years, but to say they are dangerous for ply separation and blow out may be over the top. With all of the miles I have driven since radials came to be here in the States (and I most likely have fewer miles than most) I've never had a blow-out. Flats, yes, blow-outs never.

 

Frank

While I don't know of substantiating data, my personal experience with radial tires over the most recent 62 years has involved approximately 9 or 10 tread separations, maybe more, and most also involving blowout prior to being able to exit the traffic lane. Usually the tires were 4 to 5 years of age, but some were not as old. Typically the steel belt is the issue, creats imbalance, and quickly advances.

There are times when I've detected slight imbalance in time to replace a wheel/tire combination in time. I've also had significant body damage to vehicle and trailer due to the belt-tread separation. I've never experienced this , even with ancient Bias-Ply tires , even at speeds I should not have driven.

[wayne sheldon]

3 hours ago, Marty Roth said:

While I don't know of substantiating data, my personal experience with radial tires over the most recent 62 years has involved approximately 9 or 10 tread separations, maybe more, and most also involving blowout prior to being able to exit the traffic lane. Usually the tires were 4 to 5 years of age, but some were not as old. Typically the steel belt is the issue, creats imbalance, and quickly advances.

There are times when I've detected slight imbalance in time to replace a wheel/tire combination in time. I've also had significant body damage to vehicle and trailer due to the belt-tread separation. I've never experienced this , even with ancient Bias-Ply tires , even at speeds I should not have driven.

While I also do not have substantial data to support it? My experience mirrors Marty R's.

I had an old pickup I drove for work for seventeen years, put well over a half million miles on it having worn out two engines. Before that, I had another old pickup, put over 170,000 miles on it. Both of those, hard use, more than a little abuse, long miles, and all on bias ply tires. Along with a dozen lesser cars, some antiques, some not, also many miles on bias ply tires. Over 3/4 million miles on bias ply tires and only ONE catastrophic blow out on something that hadn't been run through at least two layers of casing cord. Forensics showed some hidden damage on that one tire.

On the flipside. A few modern use cars that had radials when I bought them. A couple that I just couldn't find bias tires for anymore, and my more recent modern "wheels is wheels" daily drivers that were designed for radial tires from the factory (THAT does make a difference!).  A couple of those vehicles I put in the neighborhood of 70,000 mile on? A couple others totaled about another 70,000. A few vehicles I put maybe ten thousand on during the short time I used them? So maybe my total miles on radial tires is somewhat under 300,000 miles? How does SIX catastrophic blowouts on sound looking and moderate or low mileage radial tires sound? And don't forget to factor in somehow the nearly a dozen my careful inspections caught before they blew out! Don't forget the two my minivan began to shake at moderate speeds and I removed each of the four tires to find two had become "EGG" shaped! Had I not specifically looked for failing radial tires they would probably have blown within a week or two at most! Don't forget the four heavy duty rated name brand tires with over fifty percent tread remaining I took off the Ford Expedition because my careful examinations revealed they were chewing themselves up from the inside out! Don't forget the two Firestone 500 tires I had blow out thirty miles apart in the middle of nowhere on a family trip and had to hike into the next town because I had only one spare with me! By the way, those last two only had maybe 3000 miles on them, and I refused the offered replacements.

I have done less than half as many miles on radial tires as I have on bias ply tires. Yet I have had six times as many catastrophic failures (in spite of my routine inspections because I DO NOT trust the #@## things!), counting only the tires that went cablooey, and more than fifteen times the failure rate if one adds in the ones I headed off before the kabooms!

 

If there is an "old wive's tale" about modern tires? It is that radial tires are safer than bias ply.

[John348]

On 1/23/2022 at 11:17 AM, 8E45E said:

Studebaker used Ford 289's.  Hear that all the time.

 

Craig

And Ramblers used Chevy 327's