[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 nameAuthor names are only available to PAS members.]

Ken, I am hoping others with more experience will post, since at this point I don’t have operational experience. I suspect that once the trapped air leaks out of the top of the lower can and floods the sending unit tube up to the level of gas in the tank that it would likely take a lot of driving before enough air is restored to get it working again, or even not start working even with a lot of driving if the surface tension of the fuel in the sending unit line prevents the air bubbles from rising in the small tube and purging the fuel.

There have been of course lots of PASB articles and posts on this problem through the years.

Like “Chauncey” I have no trophy aspirations for my Pierce, but enjoy the challenge of making stuff work again. We know they must have worked to a reasonably acceptable level when new, and maybe it was simply that they would have been driven regularly, had no varnish or sediments in the tank and had never been disassembled. My idea above of adding valves to the system to provide a means to back flow the fuel out of the sending unit will probably create more problems than it solves unless a dead certain seal in the valves and their connections can be achieved – I will be cogitating on that.

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 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 gauge for the test of my system shown in the picture above was bright red for 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 one I had bought over 20 years before and had been kept in its black light blocking packaging 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.

Jim

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

It occurs to me that perhaps it would be possible to get a KS fuel gauge working again that has stopped because it has lost its air charge from a miniscule leak after sitting for awhile.

Install a stop valve somewhere between the sending unit and the gauge and close it. Install a tee connection to the line between the sending unit and the new stop valve. The line coming from the tee will also need a stop valve. Blow air into the tee to clear the line and sending unit of fuel – might be able to hear it bubbling in the tank when it clears. Close the valve going into the tee while still blowing air into it. Then open the valve going to the gauge.

Of course the valves and their connections introduce a new source of potential leaks and could make the problem more frequent.

Jim

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

Bill, the CAD files are on their way.

Peter, mine is the King-Seeley hydrostatic gauge. The previous picture shows the test I did to see if it would work off the car first. The two big problems as you know are getting the connections of the tube between the gauge and the sending unit as perfectly sealed as possible. On my test I immersed the sending unit in a jerry can of fuel and timed how long the column would stay up before leaking down. I got it to where it could last more than a week. I think some have soldered the connections or used sealant when making the connections, I didn’t want to do anything permanent for my test since I had to take it apart again to install on the car.

To keep it working on the car it must be driven periodically to slosh the fuel around. The whole complicated sending unit in the tank relies on the fuel sloshing around to fill the little trays that then drain down with trapped air down the tiny tubes and replenish the air trapped in the top of the can at the bottom of the unit. I don’t think the air gets recharged with a full tank or nearly empty tank so I theorize that 1/4 to 3/4 tank is probably best to keep it working. Of course if the tiny tubes get plugged with junk they won’t work either. This requires either a pristine tank with no sediment or a filter around the sending unit. I built a filter to surround the sending unit but won’t know if the whole mess works until I get the car on the road. I don’t think my filter turned out to be a very good design, it became a real kluge to get it to go down the fuel tank hole. With a couple years to mull it over I am thinking of redoing it. Instead of surrounding the entire sending unit assembly with a brass mesh, I am considering applying a fine mesh to the tops of the little trays themselves and a separate filter for the main fuel pick-up tube. It probably also needs a screen for the bottom of the can since it has a very tiny hole that lets the air bubbles get into the can. Mine was blocked with old gas sludge.

It is with some trepidation that I post the picture of my kluge. In my mind it didn’t start out this crude.

Jim

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

This appears to be identical to my ’35 845. I generated a CAD model of the facia markings for restoration if it would be of any help.

Jim

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

I have been curious at times about the membership numbers, they sometimes seem to be roughly consistent with the date when joined but some with lower member numbers have later join dates. Not that it is important, sort of like trying to sort out car body, serial and engine numbers and build dates!

Jim

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

I believe 33-34? Buick lenses will fit 33-35 Pierce-Arrow if you can find them. When Irv Blonder made replacement lenses many years ago he reproduced the non-handed Buick lenses so one mold could cover all 33-35 and be reasonably affordable. Unfortunately he had run out of them by the time I bought my P-A and needed a LH for my ’35. Reproducing lenses is obviously challenging, and when some insisted that they needed “authentic” acrylic lenses down to part numbers for 33-34, 35, L/R Irv bowed out from making more and Roy Judd took on the task of making 4 separate molds for each. Apparently 33-34 glass lens have been reproduced since then, and I salute whoever went to that very challenging task. I admit to some shock when $700 prices are touted for lenses, but pricing out replacement plastic lens for new cars puts in it perspective.

Its hard to to tell the difference in lens details on a car driving down the road, so if the choice is keeping a car hidden from view because it’s lens’ aren’t “correct” or enjoying the car, I say enjoy the car.

Jim

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

Re: powerpoint. Using powerpoint to compactly illustrate technical issues goes beyond just resizing or multiple pictures. If there is serious interest out there for a step by step tutorial on creating an uploadable JPEG image from powerpoint with text and arrows I could create one. Like most software, it is easy to use except the huge numbers of features takes a while to sort out. An example from a previous post is attached.

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

I have been quite happy and impressed with the site, it is easy to use and reliable given the volunteer nature of maintaining one. I am one of the people on it pretty much daily.

I think before talking about completely gutting and rebuilding the website based on statistics of use it should be born in mind what percentage of users will use it regardless of how easy or intuitive or “good” it is.

Many – probably most -members are passive and the PAS is not their daily interest. All clubs end up being driven by a relatively small number of individual volunteers with the majority being passive. I doubt a significant website change is going to move that needle dramatically. I am not opposed to improvements, just saying expectations should be realistic. The “curmudgeon” factor must be applied. Many are not good at computers or even interested in using them. For example, there has been an effort to get interest in the PAS Facebook page, but after watching my wife deal with facebook and all its distractions and privacy problems I don’t want to have any Facebook account (she has stopped using Facebook herself). I am a curmudgeon like many and only acquiesced to getting a “smart” phone last year.

I have been a member of PAS for over 30 years, have owned my derelict Pierce for 28 years. I have been a passive member and quietly collected PASB’s, Arrows, and other information until I finally started working on it a few years ago. I have been a member of Packard Automobile Classics for longer, I am much more active in it going on many tours with my Packard, but rarely visit the PAC website. The PAC website is large and impressive, but it simply is not my focus at the moment.

I am spending so much time on the PAS website primarily because it is my current project and at the top of my mind.

Jim

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

I would be less concerned about breather filtration, it is primarily there to allow the dirty blowby from the rings to escape the crankcase, so it is generally blowing out not sucking outside air in.I would worry about a filter on the breather plugging up with carbon and sludge. Pierce’s system of dumping the breather blowby gasses between the air filter and carb inlet makes sense. The slight pressure drop of the air filter helps induce the breather flow (which actually shouldn’t need any help) and if for some reason the pressure goes negative it is drawing air through the main air filter.

A PCV system would be nice – it would ventilate the crankcase and reduce the sludge and deposit formation, but would be a non-trivial task to calibrate the flow and adjust the carb mixture to compensate for the ventilation flow bypassing the carb.

As a trivial aside, an engineer in the ’30’s determined that cooling the crankcase atmosphere by positive ventilation with outside air was significantly more effective at reducing con rod bearing temperatures than an oil cooler – most of the rod bearing cooling was via the rod thrashing around in the crankcase. He proposed drawing all of the carb intake air through the crankcase, which was pretty much the appropriate amount of air to cool the crankcase air. The first (unsolved) hurdle was how to separate all the oil flying around from reaching the carburetor and avoid rapid loss of oil – not to mention the smoke screen.

Jim

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

This topic was also discussed in a lengthy thread a month or so ago. To add to the discussion, another point about temperature and engine wear. Studies way back showed that coolant temperatures of 160 and below kept the oil thicker and led to more oil getting past the rings and burning, leading to more deposits which increased piston ring, piston ring groove, and cylinder wear. Thick weight oils have the same effect, and of course engines during warmup. Ironically, the trend in piston ring design through the years shows that the problem for most engines is scraping the excess oil down, not too little oil on the cylinder walls. Moot testimony to this is the Packard senior engines. Before 1936 they used 3 compression rings and one cast iron oil ring, same as Pierce. In 1937 they replaced the #3 compression for a second oil scraper ring, so it had two compression and 2 oil rings. Customer complaints of excess oil consumption were to be dealt with by adding springs behind the rings to increase pressure.

Once pressurized cooling systems came into play coolant temps were raised to 180 -195 and above. One study found that wear was minimized with 20 weight oil and coolant temperatures above 180. The rings were less effective at scraping the excess oil down when thicker.

Years ago I had my shutter thermosylphon recharged to have a 180 opening temperature instead of 160 (it was an option on some cars) – which also helped the passenger heater effectiveness.

Compared to the air filtration issue this factor is probably more academic than practical given the really low miles any of them will likely ever see before it becomes illegal to self drive your car without computer. Meanwhile, it underscores the goodness of getting engine temperatures up by driving them (not idling or puttering around at 25 mph) and not using thick oils.

Personally I do not put my cars away for winter, I try to drive them at least once a month to avoid “death by museum” syndrome. Not always possible depending on the weather of course (like this week with a mix of heavy snow and rain). I like to get all the lubricants splashed and worked around a bit to keep the seals from drying out. The tires also develop flat spots from sitting that are annoying at highway speeds, unless you jack the cars up which makes it very inconvenient to drive them somewhat regularly.

Jim

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

Thanks for looking! Yes, converting to real units makes it .63″ wide (slightly wider) and .59″ ~9/16 high, so probably the same as the slightly too tall cross-section used on Packard and some Fords.

It looks like my choice will be having the channel stick into the window opening a bit too far or using a black cross-section that will be close to flush.

Jim

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

The Tatra’s were designed by Jaray starting in the 1920’s. He was an engineer who did much of the pioneering work on auto streamlining. You can see the elements of Jaray designs before the Silver Arrow. The Silver Arrow took some of the principles of Jaray’s (and others) designs and made them more aesthetically pleasing. Interestingly (to me), he did his pioneering automobile aerodynamic work in the same wind tunnel that the German Zeppelins were studied in.

“Streamlined” cars are usually ugly to our eyes. A truly well streamlined shape requires a long tapered tail to keep the flow from separating off the rear facing surfaces, but the length of that taper is usually quite impractical for a car that must accommodate passengers. As a compromise the back end gets lopped off usually in some unfortunate fairly blunt shape. Famously, Carl Breer’s early work on streamlining at Chrysler learned that the basic late 1920’s shaped cars had less drag going backwards.

A car design that inspired my interest in Classic cars was Virgil Exner’s theoretical 1966 Pierce-Arrow design, I thought it was the best looking fastback design, (I like ’66 Toronados too). However, while just being a basic five passenger car it’s total length would have been a whopping 22 feet.

Jim

[Author]

Posts