- Home
- About Us
- Join/Renew
- Member Benefits
- Member Pages
- Log In
- Help
- Museum Store
Yes, that’s a good idea, I think I will see if that can be done when it goes to upholstery. Thanks! Jim
I think there is an interesting example of the shutters painted body color with just fwd surfaces showing chrome instead of the whole shell, the Silver-Arrows. It is subtle since the body color was silver grey.
I taped the pins on my shutters before dropping them off at the plater to keep them from getting chromed. I don’t know if they would take the tape off before processing but did it in hopes they realized the pins shouldn’t be chromed. I made the mistake of not doing that on the front vent windows and had fun trying to make them fit again without binding. Doing it on 40 little pin bushings would be a royal pain!
When I look at ’33-35’s with shutters closed I sometimes feel the big wall of chrome is almost too much, and they look better when warm with the shutters open.
I have been looking through pictures of ’34-35’s in old Arrows and find hardly any. The couple I did see were black or dark blue and all had the whole shell chrome instead of just the forward facing surface. Some have the center piece chrome and some don’t.
I will probably wait for the chrome, but I am curious now about what the perhaps theoretical base no-option would have looked like. The closest I can come was the standard finish for a ’32 Packard Light 8 (shovel nose), but it had fixed louvers which saved some manufacturing cost but also made that lower swooping curve of the radiator shell feasible. Personally I think that looks pretty darn good. I am theorizing that the chrome shutters were always put on as a way to add $25 to the list price and avoid the special handling at the factory to match the body color. The salesman could say he would throw in the chrome shutter option at no charge to make the sale. The painted shutters may have actually only been done on special order.
Does anyone know?
Thanks, I generally adhere to the notion that if it worked before it ought to be possible to make it work again but it was quite vexing in this case. Possible and pragmatic are often in conflict. I actually am not convinced that my casting is significantly distorted or that the valves are bad, I think the main problem is the leather paddle seals. New paddle seals are available for Fords but are smaller. They aren’t complicated, but could spend more weeks fiddling trying to make them with the close tolerance and very fine edge fit and finish required. I also considered trying to come up with a differant seal design but I have many more fish to fry.
Thanks Dave. Similar but I am thinking the way they may have been done originally (except by request) would have only the front of the shell left chrome and the sides and top of the shell paint over the chrome, or maybe not. I am wondering if the center post would have still been chrome.
With my relatively light body color the front would look less like a vacant opening and maybe less of a hot rod look.
As a partial answer to my own question, the 1935 catalog actually lists chromed shutters as a $25.00 option. I wonder if it is one of those options that wasn’t really an option like heaters in later cars.
For piston rings I would try Grant’s piston rings, they were the only supplier I could find that had the wide 1/8″ compression rings in the configuration I was after (inside bevel instead of taper face tip compression). I think most of the compression rings for these engines were stock produced for Allis Chalmers engines that called for taper face, which is one step in technical improvement for oil control over the original plain rings used in the Pierce. If I remember correctly it was possible with Grant to buy individual rings instead of buying complete sets for other engines and having to mix and match to get the desired combination.
I believe Restoration supply has one or two door latch springs – the thick flat wire coils – but don’t know ditensions.
On a rainy trip from Reno to western Oregon a couple years ago my wipers barely worked at all until we got into a deluge nearing the coast. Then after working better dring the tour they became recalcitrant again coming back. I had thought they were just being fickle, but suddenly occurred to me (duh) it was the altitude. My home in Reno is about 4500 ft elevation, western Oregon of course nearer to sea level. If your wipers try to work at all at higher elevation they might start working to a degree in North Idaho in the valleys (Couer d’ Alene about 2300 ft). Not a substitute for Rainex.
Thanks, I just sent my fenders out for media blasting so I don’t have them handy to try and figure these out. I am wondering where they fit with those 2 big holes.
Good to know, thanks for checking the website re: 303 protectant. I have some but the label I have doesn’t mention no silicone which makes me assume it does, like many waxes.
I would assume the active ingredient is silicone like ArmorAll but maybe less dilute. I don’t know as it isn’t listed. Rainex is also silicone. I would be vigilant about keeping it away from the paint, better to wipe it on with a cloth rather than spray.
I once had a Tbird with original vinyl top that I sprayed regularly with ArmorAll. When I repainted the fisheyes kept coming coming through even after sanding several times to bare metal. There are additives to paint to prevent this, I don’t know how effective they are.
Call David Ficken listed in the parts and service directory. I think he is the guy, he was very prompt with me 2 days ago and very upfront about what he can do realistically. Be warned the news might not be good. Hopefully 1933 wiper motors aren’t as rare as ’34-35.
On mine he told me that ’34-35 sedan motors were only used on Pierce and some Buick and has only seen 5 in his career. He doesn’t have good parts to rebuild them. It seems prewar zinc does it again, it swells and distorts the case slightly so the paddle can’t get a good seal.
I got mine to work briefly but not for long on a vacuum pump. I will be doing some experiments on mine in the coming week.
On my “36 Packard with the same wiper arm and slightly longer wiper blade they aren’t that effective when they do choose to make a couple of swipes, there doesn’t seem to be enough force to get a “clean sweep” even with fresh blades. Packard had a variable speed function that I joke means it goes from dead slow to stop. Meanwhile, Rainex is a pretty amazing product.
Marcus has my shade, after looking at it said the opaque materials available now are too thick and the choice would be translucent silk with a hem or he could try coating the silk to make it opaque and come closer to the original.
I opted for the uncoated silk. My Packard rear shade was done with translucent silk and I found it comes in handy for night driving. Without 2 position rear view mirrors you can pull up the shade and kill the glare from the headlights of someone behind but can still see them.
I think this may have been done “back in the day”. My Pierce was confusing in that it had two rear shades, the one hidden behind the upholstery panel and another sitting on top of the rear seat. That shade is translucent silk but not long enough to cover the whole window. Either the original owner lost the shade behind the upholstery when the tassle broke, or maybe used it for night driving?
Another problem of stuffing thick material into the narrow slot of a long tube (re:window shade)! The window shade is being redone by the guy David suggested.
I am getting close to getting the upholstery done by someone who isn’t me. I will forward the tip, thanks again!
To add some pointless trivia, when I cut down the surface rust on the robe rail bar it had been flash coated with copper. Anti-corrosion not entirely effective?
I screw mine into the floorboard below the front edge of the seat with the switch handle poking out just ahead or behind the seat bottom. It is hidden depending on seat position but easy to get to.
Bob, yes its split, makes perfect sense. Thanks!
Once again David you are spot on, Marcus at Heritage responded right away and looks like the go-to guy for antique auto window shades.
Thanks again! Jim
Bill, from the Champion catalog the w16 is a standard plug while the w18Y is an extended tip that runs a bit hotter but not by a lot. The hotter part is just the tip of the plug not the whole engine. the heat of the fire in a fireplace doesn’t have much to do with how hot the match was that started ignition. The exception to this analogy is if the hot tip is enough to cause pre ignition (knock). The point of the hotter tip is if you are prone to spark plug fouling. If not, the standard plug would seem to be the choice.
I have just replaced them on my ’35. A problem was that I couldn’t find exact replacements for the channels and most of my originals were in bad shape and not salveagable. The available window channels are either too tall and stick into the window opening or are rubber covered rather than bright stainless on the edge. If you can get a decent inside measurement you can see what might be out there, primarily at Restoration Specialties and Macs Ford.
Mine were screwed to the wood framing with #4 wood screws with slotted heads filled with detritus. I got some out with a screwdriver, but definitely not all.
An alternative if the channels themselves are okay is dig out the felt and replace. I did this on my Jaguar several years ago as the felt was available by itself to reline the channels. I haven’t run into that elsewhere, but you might look at the Moss Motors XKSUnlimited site.
Haven’t dealt with a ’20’s car, but I think they were pre safety glass. Does that make them thinner with narrower channels (less than 1/4 inch)?
