Jump to content
pflaming

1954 Plymouth Suburban Project

Recommended Posts

Totally agree, but I like the paint job!

 

Marty

 

 

I told another person on chat earlier that the paint was in appearance very good, unique color..very suitable for the wagon.....but I got to question the very chrome on the hood, headlights etc etc as it appears very good..why go to that expense just to cut the corner on the bumpers...I know that bumpers are a good chunk of change getting done but they add so much to the total build...each has to weight their wants and needs against their cash flow or ideas of a build.  Just posting my opinion is all..

Edited by Plymouthy Adams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if there pics with the body off will help...

 

DSC01177.jpg

DSC01176.jpg

 

Mine is a little different as I left the stock clutch pedal through the floor, but hung the master on the firewall using a 64 Chrysler pedal assy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a pic of a 54 Dodge wagon (Same body from the cowl back as the Plymouth)  From an old magazine, the radiused  rear wheel wells look good

imagesqtbnANd9GcQ91vmnWBHiU_UFWfzP-TFpL_

 

Here is an image I was playing with trying to decide on colors, but it is a clean 53 with a great stance, and Plymothy Adams, that IS the correct location for the nameplate on a 53

 

attachment_zps5c537526.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a pic of a 54 Dodge wagon (Same body from the cowl back as the Plymouth)  From an old magazine, the radiused  rear wheel wells look good

imagesqtbnANd9GcQ91vmnWBHiU_UFWfzP-TFpL_

 

Here is an image I was playing with trying to decide on colors, but it is a clean 53 with a great stance, and Plymothy Adams, that IS the correct location for the nameplate on a 53

 

attachment_zps5c537526.jpg

 

 

murfman...thanks so much for pointing out the nameplate is correct..as they say, spank my butt and send me to bed...it is so odd to see the plate in this position as all the other years has it rearward near the cowl on the  46, 47 and 48 here at the house, plus the three 49's I once owned, my current  51 and 52 Plymouths and the 54 Savoy I have here at the house also...so naturally it looked way out of place to my eyes..

 

I still do not like it there though....lol  but I do stand corrected...

Edited by Plymouthy Adams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a '52 Plymouth Suburban in the parking lot at the St. Joe Wal*Mart for sale.  Cheap paint job and wrinkling seat covers.  Mag rims and stock drum brakes.  Lots of old Thrush muffler stickers on the windows.  Never did get a chance to look under the hood, but since he didn't upgrade the brakes can only assume that still had flathead.  Since I knew his $14K price was too rich for my blood did not leave my card or take down his number.  If I didn't already have my '46 more door, a '50s station wagon may be cool to haul the wife and kid around in.  Definitely more room for groceries than the wife's '09 PT Cruiser.  It's amasing how much space a baby seat takes up, and how little cargo space a PT Cruiser really has.  I'm not sure what we will do if we have two car seats!

Edited by Captain Neon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Murf: Is that a T5 transmission? It appears to be much longer than mine. 

Murf: Those shots do help. The pedal mount assembly attaches to the transmission, so it looks to me. Makes sense because the engine and tranny do "swivel" as the torque increases and the clutch mount must then move with the tranny. 

 

Capt! Better plan for more seating space!

 

Plymouthy: I knew better on the "Cranbrook" location but you've been so much help to me, I didn't want to dent you confidence!

 

I'm getting attached to this body style. It's a car, a small covered truck, it can be made to be sporty, domestic, mod, just about anything that suits your taste. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul,

A couple of things on that "new" motor make me think it might be a latter model flattie. Have you checked the motor # yet?

 

For all of you posting the nice looking but too low if not bagged wagons, Paul has stated several times that he strongly prefers "patina " paint!   ;) 

Paul where do you buy Patina paint??  :huh: 

 

Best at ya,

 

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a '52 Plymouth Suburban in the parking lot at the St. Joe Wal*Mart for sale.  Cheap paint job and wrinkling seat covers.  Mag rims and stock drum brakes.  Lots of old Thrush muffler stickers on the windows.  Never did get a chance to look under the hood, but since he didn't upgrade the brakes can only assume that still had flathead.  Since I knew his $14K price was too rich for my blood did not leave my card or take down his number.  If I didn't already have my '46 more door, a '50s station wagon may be cool to haul the wife and kid around in.  Definitely more room for groceries than the wife's '09 PT Cruiser.  It's amasing how much space a baby seat takes up, and how little cargo space a PT Cruiser really has.  I'm not sure what we will do if we have two car seats!

 

Yes we've experienced the same thing. We have a mazda 6 wagon and the rear facing car seat sure sucks up a lot of room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for Murf,.....and invite for opinions

Is your structural fabrication complete?  Do you have any concerns for the trans hanging off the bell housing w/o support?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill, I was wondering the same thing.

Although the trans is not real heavy the extra cross member could be a good thing.

I am more concerned about the apparent lack of contact at the slip yoke as it does not appear to be well engaged. Coupled with the lack of cross member this could be a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lot of folks have already done this mod with no apparent ill side effects..mounting the tranny at the rear would be mount #3 and would well provide a bit of protection against tail shaft damage if the front u-joint cut loose...but a third mount could not be rigid given the style of the original rear mount...it would have to be able to mimic in linear the action of the center mounts while yet prevent any real extra movement...I believe proper placement of the original T5 would do this job and yet lock the unit from excess movement..not sure if they are the encapsulated style or interlock tang should the rubber fail....of more concern to me would be installing a driveshaft loop..

 

solicited opinion only...

Edited by Plymouthy Adams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some numbers: Block: P24  A 359131  ---- Head 4 . 15 . 53  -----  1405849  8  I will look up what the mean later. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thought is, if the T-5 does not weigh more than the earlier 3 spd, you're probably okay.

I focus on this subject as I am looking at a diff. but similar issue, i.e. an assembly of a front mount 241 Hemi and rear mount 5spd trans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The early Hemi has a single front mount as it went in the same hole as the flatty in 1953-55.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only find a separate left and right mount for the early hemi..and if common tie point introduction and common frame points  did not the feet sit on individual rubber mounts left and right and not a single common upper unit like the flatties...or if the same rubber mount, inverted if you will....I really have not mess with them so basically as much a  question as a reply..I really do not remember ever seeing an upper mount...I can admit to not looking for them lowers...these engines never intrigued me that much..great for show value..too much money for so little bang...

Edited by Plymouthy Adams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found that the number P24 indicates a 1954 engine block. I guess the remainder of the number 359131 must be its individual block number. 

 

Head numbers: 1405849 with a large P on top. and 4 * 15 *  53 possibly the year, so it may be an early '54 or the block is 54 and the head is a left over '53. 

 

Page 134 of the Service Manual Indicates that the 53-54 models were P 24's and P 25's at 7.1 compression ratio and 100 hp at 3600 RPM

Edited by pflaming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for Murf,.....and invite for opinions

Is your structural fabrication complete?  Do you have any concerns for the trans hanging off the bell housing w/o support?

Yes it is complete, the trans is longer than the original 3 speed, and weighs about the same, I'm not concerned about it.  I think mounted this way is actually easier on the trans, all it is dealing with is the rotational force of the torque thru the driveshaft, and not holding the engine/trans in place while dealing with the stress of the engine trying to twist out of the frame.

 

Bill, I was wondering the same thing.

Although the trans is not real heavy the extra cross member could be a good thing.

I am more concerned about the apparent lack of contact at the slip yoke as it does not appear to be well engaged. Coupled with the lack of cross member this could be a problem.

Since that picture was taken I made a 1 1/2" spacer to go be tween the flange on the rear diff, and the bolt on yoke at the rear of the driveshaft.

The reason I made a spacer is that driveshaft is a stock 1993 Mustang 5.0, so if I ever had a problem and needed a replacement it would be easy to find, + I'm a tightwad and I had a chunk of 4" od bar stock and I have a lathe and mill so it was cheaper than re-tubing the driveshaft.

 

lot of folks have already done this mod with no apparent ill side effects..mounting the tranny at the rear would be mount #3 and would well provide a bit of protection against tail shaft damage if the front u-joint cut loose...but a third mount could not be rigid given the style of the original rear mount...it would have to be able to mimic in linear the action of the center mounts while yet prevent any real extra movement...I believe proper placement of the original T5 would do this job and yet lock the unit from excess movement..not sure if they are the encapsulated style or interlock tang should the rubber fail....of more concern to me would be installing a driveshaft loop..

 

solicited opinion only...

3 sets of mounts would be a no no, if I were to put a mount at the rear of the trans I would remove the mid mounts. 3 mounting points would too easily create binds and potential cracking / breaking of the trans/ block etc...

 

Another thought is, if the T-5 does not weigh more than the earlier 3 spd, you're probably okay.

I focus on this subject as I am looking at a diff. but similar issue, i.e. an assembly of a front mount 241 Hemi and rear mount 5spd trans.

The T-5 is roughly the same weight, it is bigger, but aluminum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most T-5s came with support rods that fastened at the top front mounting holes and to the case in the rear to take the load off of the mounting ears.

I have not seen those support rods on any T-5's I have delt with. Is that mostly a world class thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only find a separate left and right mount for the early hemi..and if common tie point introduction and common frame points  did not the feet sit on individual rubber mounts left and right and not a single common upper unit like the flatties...or if the same rubber mount, inverted if you will....I really have not mess with them so basically as much a  question as a reply..I really do not remember ever seeing an upper mount...I can admit to not looking for them lowers...these engines never intrigued me that much..great for show value..too much money for so little bang...

 

As Bill mentions, the Dodge 241 and some of the 270 Hemi engines did not have ears on the sides of the blocks. The used a front mount very similar to the L6 unit.

 

As to the 3rd mount it should not be rigid, more like suspenders to go with the belt...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×