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

Looking fantastic! You must have a very steady hand.

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

Looking through the tune-up guide I see the confusion factor is the backwards way it talks about advance. It says “Manual advance: 33 degrees  (engine – maximum). Consists of retard operated by pulling out button on dash. Used for hand cranking or heavy pulling“.

The ’35 owners manual states “the spark control button is provided to meet unusual conditions. In its innermost position, the spark timing is held “advanced” and, under normal driving conditions, it should remain in that position. There are conditions which may arise that require “retarding” the spark. This is accomplished pulling the the button out until the desired position is reached. Evidence that the spark is advanced too far is indicated by “pinging” in the engine. However, this is not harmful to the engine.  A slight “ping'” indicates that maximum power is being obtained from the engine. There are many causes for “pinging”, the more common causes of which are, inferior grades of gasoline and heavy pulling on steep grades.

The confusion arises from calling the 33 degrees “maximum manual advance”, when it would be clearer to call it 33 degrees maximum manual retard. If set for maximum advance with the knob pushed all the way in and considered “normal driving conditions” 33+5 degrees 38 degrees BTDC would be a ridiculous amount of advance. It would likely try to kick backwards  trying to crank it. The 33-5 = 28 degrees of retard ATDC with the spark control pulled all the way out is pretty extreme also. At that setting maybe kerosene wouldn’t knock if you could get it to fire at all.

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

Yes, that’s the way I understand it. The spark control is used in case one gets a batch of low octane fuel and it starts to knock. In the case of a 1930’s car that probably means on the order of 65 octane or less. With 87 octane being the norm the idle timing can be advanced a bit, I use 10 degrees BTDC instead of 5. It will add a very slight amount of power, a very slight improvement in fuel economy, more advance than that not much. Heat added to the coolant will go down slightly and exhaust gas temperature will also, reducing valve recession tendencies, again very slightly. Back in the ’70’s California added devices to retard the spark to reduce pollutants and there were complaints about overheating and reduced power. My 49 state 1966 Chrysler had timing of 12.5 degrees BTDC and the California version was actually 5 degrees ATDC. If all is well it would be surprising to have any knock and any need to touch the spark retard on a ’30’s. My Packard with 6.5 compression instead of 5.5 does not have a manual spark retard at all.

 

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

Nope, I tried turning the plug a while back, but seemed very stuck after some soaking and I am paranoid about applying a lot of brute force to anything on the manifold. The butterfly itself is very free and moves very easily, oddly enough.

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

Rather than guess at what parts are correct or not you could just stick something down the port with everything removed and measure how deep it is to hit the ledge that the piston head sits against. A long bolt or threaded rod a little smaller in diameter than the piston with a nut at one end could be used to bottom the bolt in the hole, then turn the nut until it touches the end where the regulator nuts bear against the outside of the block. That gives you total depth. Then measure the length of the piston and everything except the spring that goes into the hole with adjustment screw all the way out to see if the piston has room to move out without the spring. A wire with a very short hook bent 90 fegrees at the end could be used to find the depth of the start of the bypass slot. This would determine if something is too long to let the piston open enough.

Assuming there is then the spring might be too stiff or too long. With the measurements of the hole and pieces including some spring dimensions I could calculate.

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

You can get zinc additive and not have to resort to such thick oil. Ab Jenkins was using 20 straight weight on his speed runs in the hot desert of Bonneville. 20 straight is a fair bit thinner than 10W30 at high temperatures. At low temperatures the viscosity for any of them is dramatically thicker than needed to maintain oil film thickness.

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

Good that you found the piston is free. I am unclear though, before it still had high oil pressure with piston in but the spring removed? Now it goes to zero pressure with spring and piston removed, indicating the bypass is clear without the piston. Not sure how to interpret that. Will it still read high if you put the piston back in but leave the spring out?

I assume both the pressure relief valve and port reading the pressure is downstream of the oil pump fed by the same oil gallery system that feeds the bearings, so I don’t think the pump would be deadheading.

I echo Carl’s concern that the bearings might be set up too tight. Extreme tight clearances make for a quiet engine until the bearings fail. 20W50 oil is thick and contributing to the high oil pressure, although probably not a primary cause. My 35 manual recommends nothing thicker than 30 straight weight, Packard recommended 40 only if average temperature exceeded 90F. These engines were designed to use thinner oils hence the large bearing and piston surface areas. 20W50 provides greater load capability that isnt needed but increases bearing temperatures, not good for babbit. Multi vis is good, but I would use 10W30 or at most 10W40. 10W30 is thicker than 30 straight weight at temperatures above 210 F that the local bearing temperatures will see.

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

I’m not sure how to interpret the detail in the circle, presumably the oil gallery fed by the oil pump is the channel at the right perhaps rotated at 90 degrees for illustration purposes, i.e I imagine it is a horizontal channel cast in the block. At any rate the problem could be the piston is stuck in the closed position as shown in the illustration without access to push on the front side. It would be difficult to pull out to see if it is free or stuck. Perhaps someone has a dissasembled a piston and could take a picture to see if there is some way to get a hold of the backside of the piston with nuts and springs removed to try and pull out.

If it is stuck perhaps a generous soak sprayed into the back side with rust cutting penetrating oils such as Kroil could loosen it.  Perhaps additives in the oil such as Rislone, seafoam etc to work on the deposits from the oil side and temporarily use a light vicosity oil to reduce the excess pressure when running, just start it and run briefly at idle once a day to work the oil in. With 90+psi pushing it would probably come loose very suddenly, if that is the problem of course.

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

Did you check that the oil pressure regulator piston wasn’t stuck closed so it doesn’t allow any oil to bypass? I’ve had a pressure regulator on a brand X stuck on a burr the other way with 0 oil pressure.

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

Thanks Bill, that explains it. The original owner of mine must have had problems with it and tried to modify it before giving up and installing a manual choke. In my box of parts when I got it was a manual choke bowden cable and a bracket on the air cleaner to mount it. The car was from Wisconsin so choking a pretty serious issue! It also had a gasoline fired Southwind heater. My Dad had a block heater for his Studebaker to keep it warm all night when we lived there in the ’60’s.

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

Interesting idea, never heard of these but looking at the website it doesn’t appear they are viable.  Quoting from their website:

Unlike some companies that recommend using their compounds in small passenger vehicles, we know from extensive testing, suspension dynamics, and a variety of other elements of physics that you cannot guarantee success or improved performance. Having produced Counteract for over 25 years, and working with large manufacturers and suspension specialists, we have only been able to achieve a 74% success rate in passenger vehicles. From our research and testing, the largest culprit in the passenger vehicle segment that prevents the product from performing at its best is due to the soft suspension of most cars.

Elsewhere on the site they say it has worked on “classic” cars which of course is a general term which nowadays means any car with a body shell more than 20 years old. They say it has worked because of their  stiffer suspension, which makes me wonder what “classic” era they are talking about. 1910’s?

At any rate the installation and removal process looks to me like it is for tubeless only (which doubles the curiosity about what classic cars could they possibly be talking about?) Modified hot rods or race cars with bone shaking suspensions?

Thanks, it is pretty interesting.

I got my tires back and balanced with a lot of small weights, a bit crazy but at least they are on the car now.

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

Yes, never heard of Martin tires, must be even narrower than Lester. I just managed to get one of the sidemount covers installed, the overcenter buckle clips would not close over the Lesters, I had to make little extension clips to add 1/2″ length for them.

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

I wonder if Pierce increased the well width for “36-38 or changed the snubber? Or maybe the snubber I have isn’t original to the car, although it definitely fits down correctly to the well. It just pushes the tire too far out to the side when bolted down.  I currently have 700-17 Firestones on the road wheels of  my Packard wih Lesters in the sidemounts to fit the covers. The Denmans I was using to roll the Pierce around on were the first set of tires I wore out on the Packard, then a set of Lesters, now Firestones. I measure the max inflated width of the Firestones at about 8 1/8 wide and the Lester’s at 7 9/16, about a 1/2  inch narrower. The width of my ’35 845 fender well is 8 7/8″, my Packard is about a 1/2” wider. The issue on the Packard wasn’t fitting it in the well, it was the sidemount covers wouldn’t fit over Denmans or Firestones. Lesters are also a bit smaller in diameter.

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

Just did a comparison of the max width of the Lester off the wheel, no inflation and the one on the wheel fully inflated. It was only 1/4″ difference, which surprised me it was so little. Although when I was trying to fit an old worn Denman in the well (bare) it wouldn’t go in at all but could be forced in deflated to about 10 psi.  Deflating might be enough to make it work, but seems just leaving off the fancy chrome plated snubber would be more straight forward. I lean a bit towards function over form.

There isn’t much doubt how sidemount covers got tossed back then. It’s suprising my car still had them, no way they were installed on the bald 7:50-17 spare that came with the car.

Thanks for the suggestion, Jim

 

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

There are probably other better ways but here is how I did mine. I believe the ’36 body structure configuration is basically the same as the ’35 but widened and some added reinforcement. I built a truss out of 2×4’s and supported the body at the firewall via the threaded sockets that the radiator support bars screw into. At the back I supported it via the rear door hinge screws.

One of the worries was that the only longitudinal support holding the bottom of the body in position when it is off the frame is the large hardwood rail along the floor. That is made from multiple pieces finger jointed together and even if they look okay the old cassein glue might have lost its adhesion. On mine the worrisome joint was in the rear door area and there was some rot and the finger joint was probably bad. I drilled a small vertical hole down through the finger joint, dammed up around the joint with plastic and caulking then poured epoxy down into the joint. I then added metal doubler plates to the side of the joint screwed across the joint before I lifted the body. I had the same issue with my ’36 Packard but its bottom wood rails were completely toast and I replaced those with all new ash in situ before removing the body with a similar wooden truss. The Packard was done without a handy 4 post lift using bottle jacks and jack stands.

The picture is probably confusing. There is an outer truss attached to an inner truss structure with castors. The outer truss was fixed and high enough that the frame would clear the body  after dropping the frame away from it. After the frame was rolled out the lift went back up to support the inner truss on the castors and the outer truss was disaasembled to drop the body down.

 

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

It was a few years ago when I was digging into this. I relied mainly on using the Summit Racing site that has a good search function for a lar ge vaeiety of mufflers. They often list the basic design type and I recall many were steel wool. At the risk of saying 200% of what I know, I think the glass packs and and other fibers such as steel are generally straight through and by themselves have limited sound absorption, popular with hot rudders. The Pierce mufflers were also straight through but were perforated tubes inside the outer tube. They were 3 differant lengths to attenuate different frequency ranges, the idea being to get effective sound absorption wi5h minimum back pressure. Many mufflers use internal baffles to get the sound absorption in a more compact unit with more back pressure.

I used a straight through for the #2 from Summit, but the only source I found at the time for the very long 3 ft last muffler was Waldron.They are custom built and at the time took something like 6 months to get.  Hopefully they are doing better now. Waldron had a choice of how much sound absorption, quiet or more hot rod. I chose the quiet since it is a Pierce, but in retrospect would have gone for the less quiet relying on the triple muffler concept to keep it quiet. I imagine the difference in the two sound absorptions is the amount of baffling being employed.

Another reason to use a muffler insulating wrap is Pierce often ran the fuel line down the same side as the exhaust,, sometimes on the inside of the frame rail, bad for vapor lock.

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

The original Pierce mufflers were “asbestos lagged” using a layer of asbestos inside to reduce heat transfer. I dont think available standard mufflers have any insulation, but I  believe the exceptions are straight through glass  packs that use internal glass or other fibers for sound absorption.  That is what I used for the short #1 under the fuel pump to provide a measure of insulation to reduce the fuel pump heating. The original multiple Pierce mufflers were straight through designs to minimize backpressure. I plan to add muffler wrap to the mufflers or under floor insulation as I found out years ago on another car that the wood flooring and carpet is not enough insulator without “asbestos lagging” on a hot day. My wife had to keep her feet off the floor because it got so hot.

Note that without asbestos lagging there is no such thing as an exact authentic replacement.

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

I never noticed any residuals of the animal cassein glue in joints I have pulled apart. I think it soaks into the wood and is not water resistant.  40 years ago I used resorcinol adhesive to glue joints in replacement wood, it is one of the strongest,  most water and rot resistant glues but requires accurate joints. It is what Howard Hughes used on the “Hercules” (“Spruce Goose”) wooden flying boat. It seems to be very hard to find now, so on my recent ’35 project I used epoxies which are still much better than the original casseins and more forgiving of joint inaccuracies.

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

I think it was Macs Ford parts but might have been Snyder’s. I recall measuring what the lengths of each quarter would be  to determine that they could cut them and ship them straight to avoid having them rolled up or left long for a ridiculous oversize shipping charge. I had to call and talk to a person to get that arranged.

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

I used regular Labmetal to fill pits in a spare wheel for powder coating. It came out fine, no high temp cure cycle needed. I didn’t want to use Hi temp since I didn’t think my wife would be keen on me baking chemicals in the kitchen oven.  The specs say it can go to 350 with one time 20 minute exposure to 425. My powder coater indicated many used JBWeld also. They use Prismatic powders that have a cure temp of 350, but said they go to 400.

The stuff is hard to work, being very thick and harder than body filler for sanding.

[Author]

Posts