[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

Automatic transmission Fluid’s density is a little less than water, the K-S fluid is 2.96 x denser than water. A change of 5 gallons in the tank would read as change of over 15 gallons on the gauge – until it overflowed out the top of the gauge. A simple manometer gauge of auto trans fluid would have be about the same height as the fuel tank to read full vs empty, although there is a trick to reduce that. The K-S gauge itself does that via the calibration rods sitting in the brass reservoir tube.

Jim

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

Since the fluid hardly evaporates at all at room temperature -it can sit for years in an open K-S gauge for years – I am guessing the concentrations emanating from our cars is miniscule, which explains why we haven’t dropped dead handling it. I also assume that the low vapor pressure explains why I don’t smell it. Heating it up is probably where things would get nasty. It does seem skin and eye protection is warranted.

My nephew has responded and thinks the brass and copper of the reservoir and capillary tube is likely a part of the problem, it may be a chemical reaction that gets started generating copper bromide that would explain the sudden loss of color in the dye. Some gunk or particulates in the fluid would be an indication of this.

I need to add some copper bits to my exposure experiments.

My nephew is experimenting with some highly stable and very fluorescent day-glo green dyes if anyone is looking for something different!

Jim

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

Checking chemical compatibility charts indicates that polyethlene is not recommended for long term exposure (>1 year) to acetylene tetrabromide. PE may be the plastic used for WD-40 tubes. There are two compounds that are listed as compatible: PTFE (Teflon) and Viton.

PTFE is a bit less dense than acetylene tetrabromide, so it should float. I found a red PTFE ball as small as 1/8”, but my K-S glass tube is ~1/8” so I think that ball would stick in the tube. I found natural white PTFE balls down to 1/16” dia. Perhaps one solution would be to paint a red stripe behind the glass tube and use the white PTFE ball to indicate level.

I also found 3/32 black Viton balls that should float also.

It probably wouldn’t be easy when in the car, but a ball could theoretically be dropped into the glass tube by removing the little cover above the tube. Would need some sort of clever tool to make it happen.

Jim

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

I have asked my chemistry pHD nephew if he has any ideas. Meanwhile the fluid is apparently acetylene tetrabromide (1,1,2,2-tetrabromoethane) and has a specific gravity of 2.96 (2.96 denser than water, about the same as aluminum). I am not 100% certain of the identity as it is supposed to have a pretty strong smell like camphor but I haven’t noticed that, It is referenced on several sites as K-S fluid.

The following doesn’t look promising for floating plastic balls:

From MSDS: ACETYLENE TETRABROMIDE

Incompatibility: Reacts with chemically active metals or strong caustics. In the presence of steam,contact with hot iron, aluminum, and zinc may cause formation of toxic vapors.

Softens or destroys most plastics and rubbers.

It is considered pretty toxic. Here are some warnings from chemicalbook.com:

H302 Harmful if swallowed Acute toxicity,oral

H315 Causes skin irritation Skin corrosion/irritation

H319 Causes serious eye irritation Serious eye damage/eye irritation

H330 Fatal if inhaled Acute toxicity,inhalation

H335 May cause respiratory irritation Specific target organ toxicity, single exposure;Respiratory tract irritation

be careful out there!

Jim

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

Yes, that is my problem. I let the brake fluid soak overnight with no improvement. Then let it sit in lacquer thinner for the day hoping to just dissolve it to some degree. No luck except finally got the back rear piece off. Now I am breaking the glass to remove the rest I am trying to avoid bending the frame too much. I will use an intact frame with glass to create a pattern for the glass and undersize it slightly, and your advice to install the weatherstrip in the outer frame first is good.

Bill I found another youtube on the wintergreen oil probably by the same guy where he did a test of five different solutions over several weeks – ATF, brake fluid, hot water + wintergreen, 3/1 alcohol/wintergreen and 5/1 alcohol/wintergreen. The last was the clear winner. I do have a few original rubber parts (door bumpers) that are in surprisingly good shape that I will do the wintergreen oil treatment to. The Steele repro door bumpers I put on my Packard 30 years ago still look brand new and really scream out they are repro. I think my Pierce originals revitalized will look better without paying Steele’s big prices.

Thanks, Jim

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

No they aren’t sealed, the tubes are open at the top just like the K-S fuel gauge. The tubes were made from glass eyedropper tubes sealed at the bottom by melting the glass tip with a torch.They are in a frame that keeps rain from getting in when left outside.

The temp gauge is sealed I believe.

I have a total of 3 samples each from the two vendors and the 3 pairs are behind regular glass, 99% UV filtered glass and a UV filtered computer eyeglass lens. the idea was to see if UV filtering would extend the life of the color, but to date none have faded so no way to tell. If the weather ever gets to being like summer I will put them out in the sun again.

The colored bead inside is a great idea but the K-S fluid is some high density chemical that can be corrosive, so not sure what material – including color- a ball could be made from and survive. Has anyone done this?

Jim

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

per a previous thread: I did an experiment a few years ago trying to determine how fast the K-S fluid would lose its color and if the fluid from different vendors lasted longer. I purchased new K-S fluid samples from both vendors (Ford and Classic) and put them in glass dropper tubes and set them directly in the Nevada sun for the summer. Some had UV protective glass in front of them. None of them had turned color by the end of the summer, and to date still haven’t turned sitting around in my garage.

Oddly, however, the fluid I had in my K-S fuel gauge for the test of my system was bright red for the test but after a couple of months in the garage without direct sunlight it suddenly turned light amber in the space of a week or two. That fluid was from a vial I had bought over 20 years before and had been carefully kept in its black light blocking packaging in a closed box the entire time until put in the gauge for the test.

I think it is a combination of age and light, not just the light exposure alone.

The best chance is buy fresh fluid and it should last a few years. I may put my test samples back in the sun for the summer to extend the test.

Jim

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

After 37 years with J.C. Taylor I finally gave up this year and switched to Hagerty. Taylor no longer has any local brokers in my end of the state, and my new “brokers” became a succession of other national insurance companies – Wells Fargo, then HUB with no contact information to make policy changes. The total premium was less with Hagerty even though I added an additional collector car to the policy. My local Allstate agent was able to be my Hagerty broker.

Jim

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

Dave Murray responded to my question: “I believe the bracket for the wing window operator is the same. I have both a 35 and a 36 and have not noticed any difference although I have not examined them closely.””

He also notes that he may have some good originals.

Jim”

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

I have to take back my criticisms of the Firestone 7:00-17 tires steering. I just completed an 800 mile tour with them and they behaved just fine – no more tramping than the Lesters. I guess I was overly sensitive on the first drive as it was done on I-80 which has fairly deep ruts from all the truck traffic and no bias ply tire does well in that scenario.

—and the tubes were the 700R750R16LT truck tire tubes mentioned above.

Jim

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

I had no issues with the Lester’s, just wore them out. Tubes sold with 7.00-17 by Coker are too large – previous thread. Tubes sold with 7.00-19 may be okay.

Jim

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

I ran into the same problem on my ’36 Packard years ago. The sizes for 7:00-17 are not consistent. I originally bought Denmans that would not fit in the sidemount covers. I then bought a pair of 6.50:17, they were significantly smaller and I had to stuff foam rubber around them to keep the covers in place. I discovered that Lester’s 7.00:17 is slightly smaller and has a somewhat narrower tread width. I think the Lester’s dimensions correspond to the original OEM tires. The current Firestone 7.00:17’s are larger.

A side benefit to the Lester’s – at least on my Packard – were the car handles significantly better with the narrower tread width – much less “tramping” kicking the wheel to follow ruts. There always seems to be a psychological bias that bigger is always better and 7.00-17’s get replaced with 7.50:17’s. Not always the case. Unfortunately I didn’t realize the Firestones were wider than the Lester’s and I replaced my tires last year with the Firestones. Now it is rut-following again like it did with the Denmans – I wish I had bought the Lesters. They are apparently still available at Universal, but no longer from Coker.

Years ago Coker published a catalog that gave the diameter and tread width dimensions of all their tires. On the Universal site the diameter dimension isn’t given so it might be worthwhile to check with them to confirm the Lester is still smaller. It would be surprising if it isn’t from the same mold as before though.

Jim

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

The worms and sector gears are handed left and right but the same front vs rear. On my 845 Club the shafts that come out of the worms are different, the rears have a little universal joint and fronts don’t. The only consequence of putting a left worm/sector pair in a RH window assembly is the direction to open or close will be backwards.

There are three weak spots that fail in these units from over torquing to close or open with a tight weatherstrip. I think the most common is stripping out the sector gear teeth, hence the repros from Irv and Dave, the second is breaking the cast bracket, and the third I discovered the hard way is stripping the splines of the sector gear that fit to the window shaft.

It is important to make sure that the weatherstrip doesn’t fit too tight and overstress the assembly when closing or opening. Brave words, I haven’t gotten to the point yet of doing that myself yet.

Jim

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

Yes, after meticulously recreating the shallow angles of the first prototype parts I realized that all four of mine, left/right front/rear were all twisted differently but had the same casting number. I do think they all got twisted from over torquing through the years. In the 34-35 parts book the only part that would seem to be describing these is the #772388 “Bracket, wing operator”, and the parts book lists 2 or 4 required per car (depending on whether it had rear wing windows or not).

I contacted Richard Anderson who reproduced these many years ago and his recollection was that the same casting fit all four positions.

So I think the question boils down to whether ’36-38 used the same. It appears that PAS does not have a parts book for ’36-’38, so if someone has one these from a ’36-38 handy that the casting number could be read from we would have the answer.

Thanks for any help! Jim

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

I am wondering if anyone can help with whether this fitting fits other Pierce-Arrows? I suspect it also fits ’36-’38 as the replacement worm sectors that Dave Murray reproduces are listed as ’34-’38 and I believe the doors themselves were basically unchanged.

Trying to interpret the ’34-’35 parts catalog I believe the Pierce-Arrow designation for the original part was #772388 “Bracket, wing operator”. that number does not appear on the casting itself (70302 is what is cast).

I will be placing an ad in the emporium and and would like it to reflect whatever models it will fit.

Thanks for any help, Jim

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

The motor mounts that have been supplied for the Eights are a standard rubber isolator that can be purchased from Mcmaster-Carr. The ones pictured are marked “70”, indicating they are probably very hard 70 durometer rubber. I bought a similar set for my 845 years ago, but what I believe were originals on my 845 were much softer 40 durometer. The load rating for the softer 40 durometer listed in the Mcmaster-Carr catalog is in line with total weight of the engine/transmission divided by the number of doughnuts. I vaguely recollect that these 70 durometer doughnuts were supplied for a large Caterpillar diesel. the doughnuts are available – cheap – in increasing stiffness/load ratings. The best match should be the load rating that somewhat exceeds the total weight of engine +transmission+freewheel + power brake divided by the number of doughnuts. I don’t know what that number is for a twelve, but may mean a 50 instead of 40 durometer. I think there may be a mark under the original bushings that indicate the durometer. Jim

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

I would modify some of these statements a bit. The issue with advanced spark is pretty much dominated by preventing spark knock (detonation, ping, etc). That is a function of octane number. When the Dept of Agriculture began doing nationwide surveys of automobile gasoline characteristics in 1936 the average octane number for summer gasoline was about 80 (approximating what the average would have been between the “motor method” and “research method” as posted on the pumps these days). Current regular is typically 87 octane which means it is significantly more knock resistant than the gasolines used in 1936, and spark timing can be advanced significantly over the entire range compared to factory spec. I generally advance spark about 5 degrees over factory. This will provide slightly more power and better fuel economy, more importantly perhaps it will reduce exhaust gas temperature and reduce the tendency for exhaust valve seat recession. It also reduces the tendency to overheat somewhat.

The somewhat increased pressure in the cylinder should not be any problem for the bearings except possibly if the engine is being lugged at wide open throttle at idle rpm, since at higher speeds the centrifugal force of the piston relieves the downward force of combustion.

You don’t want to advance the timing to the point where you ever hear any knock/ping/detonation, as this is the primary factor in cracking valve seats in side valve-in-block engines.

Ethanol in the fuel is not inert, regardless of compression ratio it will burn and create pressure. For our engines typically running rich – more fuel than air for complete combustion – it will probably increase maximum power slightly not reduce it. This is because it carries an extra oxygen molecule with it. The ideal air fuel ratio for pure ethanol is 9/1 compared to 15/1 for gasoline. Our pre-war engine carburetors are generally quite rich delivering well below 15/1. In addition ethanol cools the mixture more when it atomizes in the carburetor increasing the density of air going into the cylinder. The EPA forced many communities to add ethanol in the winter to improve combustion and reduce carbon monoxide emissions of cold engines running too rich. Paradoxically ethanol has less energy content per pound than gasoline, so fuel economy is a bit less. Ethanol creates other problems of course. Basically with ethanol blends you are pouring more fuel in which can deliver a bit more power at wide open throttle but increases fuel consumption.

Jim

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

I originally assumed that the castings twisting and breaking was simply due to windows being overstressed from tight or sticking fits into the weatherstripping rubber. However, in checking the fit-up of the new machined parts versus the original castings I found that they were originally assembled with a significant interference when attached to the large plate that holds the window regulators and door latches. This was forcing a significant load on the casting that was probably a big contributor to their failure. When re-installing the castings it may be necessary to open up the hole in the plate the bronze bushing goes through and redrill the attaching holes so that there is no load on the shaft and bushing when the plate is assembled. See the attached pictures.

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

Richard responded to my question on RH and LH and his recollection is that he reproduced only one casting design – not handed. I have since remade my machined parts to take out all the wonky angles so they would not be handed at all and did a fit check, they seem to be better. All the wonky angles seem to have been from twisting from being overstressed and not the original design. It appears that a single design is used for all front LH/RH and rear LH/RH. This simplifies the design and increases the production runs and reduces the costs. I have done a redesign of the part so it could be done as a single one piece aluminum CNC machining. It would not look like the original but should be significantly stronger.

I don’t know what years beyond ’34-’35 this piece would cover and what the demand might be.

Jim

[Author nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

Thanks to this post it reminded me I needed to get brighter taillight and stop bulbs for my Packard based on comments from others following me. I have ordered some LED bulbs to try that are 600 lumens. According to the source of all wisdom (the internet) candle power (or candelas) can be converted to lumens by multiplying by 12.57. Packard specified a 3 cp tailight bulb which would have only been 38 lumens. I have a stoplight bulb that was rated at 25 watts, and using a table converting incandescent watts to lumens indicates between 11 and 13 lumens/watt, thus my stoplight bulb would be about 275 lumens, so a 600 lumen should be a lot brighter – maybe too bright but the tailights have poor reflectors and are located away from the focus of the reflector.

I was operating 32 then 50 cp headlight bulbs before I switched to the newer halogens, so they would have been 400 and 630 lumens respectively. The newer halogens seemed a bit brighter than the old 50 cp, have the same filament location for the low/high beam focus and the generator can keep up with them (it couldn’t running 2 50 cp bulbs). I will stand pat with the halogen for headlights.

Jim

[Author]

Posts