TodFitch

My current house, built in 1958, has modern 1.5x3.5 "2x4" studs. My parents had a house in Tucson that was completed in, I think, 1941 which had "full dimension" lumber. I'd guess that the post-WW2 tract house boom was when the modern sized framing came into use.

A filter designed for by-pass use should simple clog up and stop passing oil. That makes it a fail-safe design. For a full-flow setup that would starve the engine of lubricant. So a by-pass valve is required. But how good a throwaway by-pass valve can they make for $3? They can leak, meaning you have no filtering. Or they can stick closed meaning that your engine can be starved of lubrication. The failure they are designed for is when the media becomes clogged, then the valve opens to let oil to the bearings. But that oil is going to have a bunch of the crud that was clogging the filter. You don't want to have that happen, so you must be cautious. And that means replacing the filter at every oil change. The bypass system simply stops passing oil from the pressure gallery to the oil pan if the filter becomes clogged. Not a real big deal. So you can run the filter until it becomes clogged. And that can be many oil changes. And since you don't want a huge flow of oil through the bypass, you can have a finer filter media. End result, with the proper selection of filter, you can get finer particles out of the oil than a full flow filter ever could. So, I think installing a filter designed for full flow in a bypass application gives you the worst of both worlds. That was the reason I was wondering if the Amsoil (or equivalent) spin-on bypass filter could be used on the adaptor shown. That gives you the best of the bypass design but with the ease of change of the modern style filters.

Your filter is rated at 7-9 GPM and 19 microns according to the WIX site. Not sure that would work on my 1933 as I don't have anything to restrict flow when the pressure drops too low like the late 1933 and up engines have. I'd probably have zero pressure at idle. Clean up can be a mess with the replaceable cartridge type filters. And the disposable canisters are a specialty item now that costs $45 from places like Bernbaum and Roberts. So I can see where you might not want to keep the original. But I don't see how a full flow filter will be that much better than the by pass type on a collector car. And the short block has no factory provision for it, so you will have to be creative. On the other hand, if you can use a spin-on bypass filter on that adaptor. That would be a great filter for you engine. Any one know if this filter rated down to 2 microns would work on that adaptor: https://www.amsoil.com/StoreFront/eabp.aspx

The Wix site shows that as equivalent to the WIX 51071 which is the 30 micron filter. For a bypass system you can stand higher back pressure (lower flow) across the filter media because you are not in series with the flow to the bearings. Because of that you might as well filter out particles as small as you can. For that reason, I'd pick the WIX 51080 (or equivalent) over the WIX 51071 (or equivalent).

As a child we took that road several times a year on our way to or from my grandparent's house in Riverside. One thing your photo is missing that I clearly recall: Bumper to bumper traffic. And also that my parents would never let us stop at the dinosaurs in Cabazon.

If the NAPA 1080 is the same as a WIX 51080, which I think is true, then it is for a bypass system. And, in theory, a bypass system can and should use a finer media than a full flow filter.

Looks cool but what would you do with it in Florida?

http://www.pureoil.com/ProductFinder.aspx?action=IG shows Chrysler filter element number 861032 crossing over to Purolator L20700. Which, surprise, surprise, crosses over to WIX 51080. So both 861032 and 1121694, even though listed as different parts in the 1936-48 parts book, cross to the same modern aftermarket replacement parts. By the way Purolator L20700 also matches to WIX 51071 which appears to be the same size as WIX 51080 except that it has a nominal micron rating of 30 rather than 19. So it sounds like one to stay away from. So that only leaves Chrysler part number 861027 to find a cross reference for.

That '62 D300 sure shares a lot of sheet metal with the '63 D200 I once had. Just an extra fill piece at the bottom front. A "D300" badge instead of a "D200". Same small rear cab window. A solid dependable truck.

I bet the footings he has his frame resting on are below frost line. He is in the California desert (Apple Valley is just north of the San Bernadino Mountains near Victorville). Even though it does get to freezing in the desert it does not stay cold long enough for the frost to penetrate the ground to any significant depth.

Over at http://www.oilfiltersonline.com/ they cross reference both the WIX 51080 and Chrysler 1121694 to a FRAM C134PL. And that same site has a listing for the heavy duty filter element (Chrysler 676575) as a FRAM C120E. The Wix site matches that to a WIX 51011 and the photo there matches the illustration in the parts book. Progress! Still need to find a cross reference for Chrysler part numbers 861027 and 861032.

I'd like to know how you got to a specific oil filter on napaonline. You are a better NAPA shopper than I. The dimensions listed there are not exactly the same as I measured on my NOS Chrysler 1121694 but it looks close enough. So I'll add it in with the WIX 51080 as a cross reference. That still leaves me wondering what the NAPA 1006 that was listed as a cross reference for the heavy duty filter actually fits. And it leaves me wondering if the Chrysler 861027 filter element used on lots of cars including some P15 crosses to.

The parts reference section on the main part of this site lists two oil filter cross references: Chrysler 1121694 crossed to NAPA 1006 Chrysler 677534 crossed to NAPA 1080. I can't figure out how to get to oil filters on NAPA Online, but WIX shows the 51080 as crossing to the Chrysler 1121694 number. And the image and dimensions looks like the Chrysler 1121694 I have at home (a paper media type filter). So, I think that 1121694 should be shown as a cross to WIX 51080. Does that sound right? Second, the parts book shows 677534 as the "Deluxe Heavy Duty" oil filter and shows it taking filter element 676575. So I think the listing for 677534 on the cross reference page is totally wrong. Any idea what Chrysler part the NAPA 1080 replaces? Could it be Chrylser part 861027? A google search turned up http://www.ytmag.com/nboard/messages/387682.html which indicates that NAPA 1080 is the same as WIX 51010, which is a paper element cartridge a bit larger than the WIX 51080 but has no application listed. Finally, regarding page 176 of the 1936-48 parts book, does anyone have any cross references for the following filter inserts: 861027 (For use with filter 677536 used on the P1 through P14, and filter kit 860821 (unknown usage, except this might be an error as in the notes element 861027 is shown as being used by filter kit 861029 on the P15)). 861032 (For use on filter kit 861029) 676575 (For use with the "Deluxe Heavy Duty" filter 677534. The illustration shows a string wrapped element, not a paper element.) Just compulsively updating a part of my web site and trying to get it right: http://www.ply33.com/Parts/group10#10-C Thanks!

But I don't think it was ever mainstream. Outside of some Jazz musicians and the LA barrios I doubt that you would have ever seen it on the street.

I think so, sometime the early to mid-1950s. One story I heard was that Chrysler's purchase contributed to the demise of Packard. Packard had also been contracting out their bodies to Briggs. When Chrysler bought Briggs, Packard started making their own bodies but they weren't as good at it as they should have been so they had a lot of fit and finish problems. And who wants to buy a luxury car that has more fit and finish problems than the low end market cars like Plymouth? My 1933 has a plate on both the firewall and on the driver side door (behind the panel) that indicates it was made by Budd (who pioneered all-steel bodies in the 1920s for Dodge). I believe that Chrysler also used Fisher bodies for a number of years before they began to build exclusively for GM.

I think they are targeting resellers rather than the the end retail market. But I would not be surprised if they are the suppliers to Roberts. See the photo for part T45 on this page: http://www.robertsmotorparts.com/car_parts.asp?Action=search&c=Cars+%2D+Engine+Area+%26+Related+Parts That price is a bit steep for me as I still see them on eBay for less.

I got an unsolicited email through my Plymouth web site yesterday that was mildly interesting. It was from an Indian company trying to drum up resellers for their wares. It seems that they are making the sealed canister oil filters. And the master cylinder repair kit I got last fall from Roberts looks exactly like the ones shown on this company's web site. So I think I now know where some of our favorite vendors get their parts: http://www.dhwani-impex.com/product_OEM.htm

Thrift stores http://clothing.shop.ebay.com/items/_W0QQ_dmptZVintageQ5fMenQ5fsQ5fClothing?_nkw=1940&_sacat=91235&_fromfsb=&_trksid=m270.l1313&_odkw=&_osacat=91235 http://www.google.com/ http://www.thefedoralounge.com/

One of the local PBS stations used to run the Red Green Show. I guess I must have been the only one watching it as they dropped it a few years back. Pretty funny, especially the construction projects with their ample use of duct tape.

I always thought that a "life time" guarantee on a part was for the life of the part. When the part fails, then its life is over and the guarantee becomes void.

What he said.

Service manual is your friend. And reprints are available so even if you can't find or afford an original, get a manual. It is possible to install a new rubber boot without removing the housing or the pin. Not easy, but possible. The manual shows the technique. New boots are available from places like Roberts. I think they are actually original stock and I have had some issue with the boots tearing as I have tried to install them. I have also seen comments here about having the boots tear after being in service for only a short period of time. Again, I think that is due to the rubber being on the shelf for decades. There are also leather boots designed for easy installation. These are also available from the usual suspects like Roberts. The joints should be lubricated but it is easy to get too much grease in them. Again, the service manual is your friend.

Non-conductive (plastic or equivalent) bucket with a number of sacrificial electrodes around the perimeter. One write up suggested pieces of rebar, I used strips cut from some sheet metal laying around the garage. Wire all electrodes together and they will be hooked to the positive side of your charger. Fill the bucket with a mixture of washing soda and water. I don't recall the exact amount (and it is not critical) but something like 1 cup soda per 5 gallons should be fine. Suspend the part to be de-rusted in the solution and be sure that it is not touching any of the sacrificial electrodes (you don't want a short circuit). Connect a wire attached to your part to the negative terminal of the battery charger. Do a Google search on "electrolytic rust removal" to get more information than you need. http://www.google.com/search?rls=en-us&q=electrolytic+rust+removal&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 That is pretty much it. There will be some black stuff to wipe off with a cloth/brush/steel wool when you are done. If you hook up the battery charger backwards you will destroy your part (and de-rust the sacrificial electrodes) but other than that it is very safe for your steel and iron parts. In fact it only removes rust so if you leave a part in too long nothing bad happens. The water comes out looking really grungy. As Norm's Coupe mentioned there stuff coming off other than iron oxide that might make it hazardous waste. But that stuff removed from a part would be hazardous anyway if you removed it mechanically or with acid.

The washing soda/battery charger worked very well on the small parts I tried it on. Very impressive in its effectiveness and speed. Since my car is pretty much together I don't need to do a lot of rust removal but it is now my method of choice. If you search around on the web you will find that people have done this on things as large as car frames by making a wooden form large enough to form a tub for the part then using a sheet of plastic to make it hold the water/washing soda mixture.