- Home
- About Us
- Join/Renew
- Member Benefits
- Member Pages
- Log In
- Help
- Museum Store
To be fairish and fill out the rest of the picture, doing it the sweat equity way takes a lot of time – you better be determined. I restored a ’36 Packard 30+ years ago basically from 2 very rusty junkyard heaps and lots of other parts obtained at prices less than scalper rates with some patience. I estimated it took me about $25,000 in todays dollars plus ~7000 manhours of my time. It doesn’t win any best of show awards but looks pretty good going down the highway at 65.
I think I am a bit smarter and definitely less fanatical now and could have cut that to 4-5,000 manhours by not doing silly stuff like completely stripping, sandblasting and carefully painting the frame – it was filthy after the first tour. That included replacing 80% of the body wood myself, lots of sandblasting, bodywork, painting it myself, keeping careful reigns on the machine shop to only have them do what was necessary, not “fixing” a transmission that didn’t need fixing, not rebuilding shocks that didn’t need rebuilding, and so forth. The car has been a nice driving, reliable tourer for 30 years.
This twelve looks to be more complete and in better shape, but it is a luck of the draw on what one will find inside. I was lucky with my Packard and so far with my 845 Pierce that the damage from corrosion inside the running gear was limited. There is a natural tendency to try to restore everything to better than new condition, but that really isn’t feasible. The likelihood of anyone taking something apart and rebuilding it to as good as the factory is small. $25,000 for a “professional” engine rebuild versus a few thousand to maybe reduce the risk of a thousand dollar towing bill if something fails on a tour are something to weigh.
I would guess this twelve would be on the order of 3-4000 manhours doing it in a similar fashion. Of course, doing stuff yourself is always a trade between how much money you have to spend versus time. The net value of your time doing “sweat equity” is probably in the single digits dollars/hour.
There are often comments about how wonderful to find a car not “molested” by amateur restorers, but of course many of those cars would never be restored by people just paying out a fortune to have someone else do the work. Closed cars simply have a large negative return on investment. You have to really want the car for your own satisfaction. The ideal find for someone is a car someone else lost their shirt on getting it “professionally” restored, and hope something fundamental wasn’t missed in the process.
The reality is that this twelve – like my 845 – is worth a lot more in parts than as a restored car. It will only be restored by someone looking past the financial realities.
Jim
“Professional”” doing the work is the key issue. If you can do a lot of the work yourself as an “”amateur”” and don’t have dreams of Pebble Beach it can be done for a lot less. Often the “”professionals”” make things worse rather than better on your dime. My first experience 35 years ago with a nationally recognized “”expert”” with a professional restoration business gave me advice that would have resulted in a seized bearing at first start if I hadn’t the time and knowledge to think it through myself.
Be careful out there.
Jim”
I gave some serious thought to this since it is the same body/year as my 845 – so theoretically could mix and match the best bits and end up with a twelve. It looks pretty complete, has a few parts I am missing, but in the end it would be lost time and huge complication to take it on.
A few hours ago I drove my 845 up the cul de sac for the first time. All gears shift well, brakes work well, and did several brief full throttle slams in 2nd and 3rd to start seating the rings. So far it doesn’t seem to be smoking – big relief – so as appealing as a V-12 seems, to much added time! Looks like mine is good enough to continue to the next steps.
I hope someone buys this twelve to restore and not just part it out, it looks like it is probably in better shape overall than what I started with.
I do hope whoever restores it changes the color scheme, by coincidence it is very close to what I am planning!
Jim
My 11th edition is the 1948 “Motors Auto Repair Manual” from 1948 – not difficult to get.
Does someone know if there is a previous series “Motors handbook” that would explain the higher edition number with a 1936 date? I haven’t seen one, but being more contemporary to the years it seems likely to have more information than the 1948.
Jim
I have the 11th edition Motors that covers 1935 through 1947 and has about 1/2 page on adjustments and cutaway of the separate choke for EE-1 and EE-3.
I could scan and send if helpful.
Jim
Well, the last one was written on a piece of tape attached to the inside of the stainless steel water manifold plate, so I had to scratch it off! I’ll keep it in mind as I keep dredging parts up.
Jim
The bolt-on counterweights were less than ideal because holding them on required drilling and threading the crank putting stress concentrations near the main bearing cheeks. It looks like they must be removed to grind the journals. Casting or forging the counterweights integral with the crank as one piece should be better structurally with less chance of fatigue failure.
The later integral counterweights are also symmetric around each con rod instead of just 4 large bolt-ons offset from the centers of mass of the rods and pistons. I think the later crank is a significant design improvement and likely was more expensive rather than less to balance each throw. It is also nice that the counterweights don’t have to be removed to grind the journals.
Do the first eights have counterweights at all? Theoretically an inline eight does not need counterweights to be in balance, the main purpose of the counterweights is to reduce the load on the main bearings from the piston and rod inertia at high RPM, so counterweights became more important as engine RPM’s were pushed higher.
By most standards my ’35 should have been rebored, but it hsd NOS Bohnalite in very good shape, so I am gambling on original type pistons with a somewhat iffy original bore honed only but with the best oil control ring stack I could get. I could have had the thing bored and sleeved to keep the standard bore pistons, but sleeving isn’t without risk either, besides being expensive.
The main issue with a worn piston is the top groove is worn. In the past, instead of just automatically tossing old pistons and replacing, simple hand tools were available to cut the groove oversize and insert a steel “top groove spacer””. A piston will actually last longer with the top groove spacer than original (because the steel wears longer than aluminum). I think you can still get top groove spacers.
JIm”
Yes, the steel strut is actually invar which is an expensive alloy that has the unusual quality of having zero expansion with temperature that keeps the aluminum the piston from growing in the bore when it gets hot – needed to allow the really tight piston clearance. It also was tin plated as an anti-seizure measure. they are more sophisticated than the lumps of aluminum you might get aftermarket.
Jim
Okay that looks a lot better. Standard 1/8″ thick compression rings are .150 thick, so a .156 ring depth indicates the pistons were designed for standard ring wall. There just needs to be a small clearance between the inside surface of the ring and the piston groove so the ring floats in the groove as the piston cocks slightly in the bore. Your pistons look like they are in very good shape, presumably pretty fresh.
As I mentioned in my email, I have 16 unused 3.5″ standard bore plain compression rings that would fit if you want them. I also have 8 chrome taper face top rings if you want them. I bought them and didn’t use them in my Pierce.
I have been running chrome taper face top rings, Type 70 scrapers in #2 and #3, and chrome face 3 segment oil rings in my ’36 Packard for 20,000+ miles now. The antique piston ring suppliers often supply plain compressions and oil rings because they are easy, available, and have no issues with seating and quick break in. They have no issues with break-in because they wear easily and wear out quickly, so the rebuilder won’t come back at them with seating issues on fresh rebuilds.
Years ago Egge supplied all plain compressions for my Packard even though the original configuration was plain #1, type 70 scrapers in #2 and #3. 1930’s Pierce used the same. The rings they were supplying were stock for Allis Chalmers tractors that had a choice of plain or chrome.
I mentioned Grant because I wanted to go to an “inside bevel” chrome top ring on my Pierce and they had them long after the other suppliers ran out of stock. That is why I have left over chrome taper face. The other suppliers still have chrome taper face which is better than plain but not as good as inside bevel at oil control.
Type 70’s for the #2 groove and 3 segment oil rings should be easily found if desired.
Since the engine appears to not have many miles on it since rebuild I fully understand the desire to only replace what’s broken – my usual philosophy, but just to make life more complicated it looks like you have some alternatives if you want.
Jim
I’ve broken a few rings myself. I won’t even put cast iron oil rings back in because they are so fragile when reinstalling and if one breaks there is no way of knowing until it is smoking like a steam engine. I’m not the most skilled mechanic!
Since you have them all out I would consider replacing them all and honing the cylinders, it wouldn’t be too expensive and can be done at home with a hone and hand drill. Honing should answer any seating issue as long as the taper isn’t too great. Cast iron rings with no effective air filter were only expected to last ~15,000 miles.
I would also consider advancing to the 1930’s and putting in a type 70 (Perfect Circle jargon)outside cut scraper ring in #2 groove and a 1950’s technology chrome rail expander ring for the oil. They won’t break on installation and will cut down the smoke at idle and riding compression. They reduce the pumping of oil past the rings on the inlet stroke under high vacuum. The rings stuck from deposits is mute testimony to the excess oil being pumped up.
I have to check the depth, but if the same I put these same dimension rings in my ’35.
I apologize for more free advice than wanted!
Jim
Charles, are you just trying to replace the broken ring or are you replacing all? Your piston looks to be in very good shape.
Jim
I found some difficult to locate rings from Grant. I have a number of piston ring catalogs, if you have the diameter, height and depth I might be able find interchange applications to help find workable rings. They look like basic 1/8″ thick plain compressions and a 3/16 oil ring. I won’t be able to get to it until the weekend.
Jim”
Here are a few pics of mine showing the brake torque shaft going into the drivers side without bracketry, the U-bend of the shaft, and the bracket that is only on the passenger side of the rear axle.
Hope this helps.
Jim
If the 836 is the same as 1935 845 I can take some pics this weekend.
Jim
I would err on the side of looser. Automobile engines, particularly luxury car engines specified very tight clearances for basically one reason: to make them silent. Industrial/commercial engines specify much looser clearances to minimize friction, bearing temperature, and life. They make a lot of noise but ironically last longer.
As per my discussion on oil viscosity, tighter clearances also generate more friction and heat which is the enemy of babbitt bearings.
The following quote from J. F. Taylor’s seminal text “Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice”:
“The usual recommendation for crankshaft bearing clearance is .001 times the journal diameter. The author’s experience, confirmed by most bearing experts, is this is a minimum value, and that values up to twice this amount are acceptable and often desirable. Small clearances are dangerous both because they do not allow enough for distortion and because they have less safety against wear and scoring by foreign particles…bearing coefficient of friction decreases as clearance/diameter increases.
The objections to large clearance include lowering of the value of the Sommerfield variable and hence a lower factor of safety against oil film breakdown. However, most bearings fail for reasons other than direct oil film failure. The present author cannot recall a bearing failure due directly to excessive clearance, whereas he has seen a great many bearing failures attributable to inadequate clearance….No journal bearing in any engine, no matter how small should have a minimum clearance less than .001 in.”
On my 845 the minimum recommended by Taylor matched the maximum (.0025) specified by Pierce. If you set clearances super tight it is extremely important as Greg mentions that the journals be round and have virtually no taper. Check the clearance in multiple positions to make sure there is no position where it has inadequate clearance. Plastiguage is useful in making sure that the journal and rod bearing aren’t tapered, and that the rod sits flat against the bearing The slightest bend or machining error of the rod bearing can make the rod ride one side and reduce its load capacity. A tight clearance has virtually no room for error. I wouldn’t trust any rebuilder to do a better job than Pierce-Arrow, and that means it is safer to err on the looser side of the clearance. It is also better from a heat and bearing survival standpoint.
I think many of the bearing failures on antiques attributable to bad babbitt may actually be from rebuilders proudly setting them up at the minimum clearance with the notion that is the measure of rebuild quality, and then putting in thick oil to give it that extra measure of protection.
Jim
On further thought one should take the more obvious choice, if the nuts came loose without 40+ ft-lbs torque they were probably not torqued high enough. That would allow the caps to part slightly at high speed near top dead center with throttle closed at the beginning of the intake stroke and pound the babbitt at the parting line when they snapped back together.
Jim
Always fun to theorize. Bill, for your rods if they are that consistent around the parting line I would suspect that when the babbitt was applied there was a slight contamination around the rod bolt holes, that spread to the nearby surfaces. Studebaker engineer Stanwood Sparrow noted that all it took to ruin a complete batch of babbitt was a single copper washer dropped in by mistake, i.e. pretty sensitive to contaminants.
I think he also noted that usually the babbitt did not fail near top dead center or bottom dead center where the loads tend to be the highest but typically about 45 degrees off where the loads would reverse from compression to tension (combinations of pressure loads and inertias throw then off from straight up and down).
Greg’s bearings look like they failed right at top dead center, which would imply the engine was lugged at high throttle low rpm with hot oil. That is the scenario of driving the car at highway speeds getting everything good and hot minimizing oil viscosity, then stopping and reaccelerating with a high throttle low rpm (lugging). Hot oil, high torque + low RPM is the most likely combination to break through the oil film at TDC. Its where multi-vis is an advantage.
Jim
Paul, thanks for responding. Looks like I need to get some particle board.
Jim
Sorry to keep bringing this up -maybe I’m obsessed- but I found (too late for me)wonderful pictures of the installation and arrangement of the 34-35 mufflers (perhaps also applies to ’33?). 21 years ago I squirreled away the 1995 model 4 issue of “The Arrow” that shows all three mufflers and the interconnecting pipes on a long wheelbase. It also shows the internal construction of the front and rear mufflers that of course agrees with the remains of the original muffler posted by Bill Lyons. These could be used to reconstruct new mufflers to the original design if someone has a mind to do that in future.
Unfortunately, when I was trying to figure out mufflers for mine I stopped short of pulling this issue out after I found a less detailed set of pictures in a different “the Arrow’ I had squirreled away.
One of the problems of delaying a restoration project for 20 years. Oh well!
Jim
