kencombs

Taps don't work, need to HIT it. I hope you meant that you are hitting the seal with a drift not the 'timing cover' as stated?

Clean some paint off and it should be obvious. One side will be larger in diameter than the other. Or, wait til the new one is in your hands. And, BTW, that is not a seal removal tool, it is an installation tool. I guess one could use it to remove, but I've never seen one used for that. A punch or chisel works best for removal IME.

Yes it would. 'cause that chassis never had a 25" engine from the factory. Many, many years ago I put a 251 in a car , think it was an early 50s plymouth, that had a 23. Notched the crossmember. Moved radiator to front of the support. And drilled new mount holes. But, the pickup like mine was designed for either as it was used in Oz, USA and Canada with local assembly changes.

The difference is in the location of the front mounts. For, instance my 56 pickup frame is built in such a way that RH drive and 25inch engines could be install for export builds. There are two sets of front mount holes in the front crossmember. The rear mount doesn;t change, just the front mount and radiator location.

You need manifold vacuum. Usually available below the carb. If you have vacuum wipers that's a good place.

Depends, do you have an impact wrench? If so, that is the answer. Otherwise I prefer a box end wrench and 3-4lb hammer to loosen. Always afraid the breaker bar would somehow rotate and damage something.

Mitsubishi is the undisputed leader in mini-splits, especially the Hyper-heat units. But that expertise and performance comes at a cost.

I had a dual fuel system install in 1980, long before that became common. Mine was the only one local installers had experienced. In '73-74 I did first heat pump and really liked it, but the electric backup/supplemental was expensive on really cold days. And, heat pumps were not as efficient below freezing as today's are. So, when I built the '80 I did heat pumps with propane aux heat. NG wasn't available at the time or I would have used it. Very happy with that set up. In my home today I have a high efficiency mini split in a room I added on. Works down to zero and very cheap to operate. Depending on the size and design of the home, mini splits can be a good solution.

Search for 'threaded shaft collar' at Mcmaster-Carr, or similar online store. You can use one of those in the right size to replace the nut on your tool. Or, modify your nut using that design as a guide. Drill and tap a setscrew hole and saw a split into the nut. But, it's kind of tricky to drill at an angle like that so close to the edge. If you have a welder or can braze one can add and 'ear' on the nut to use for the clamp. In any case, the result is a nut with no play in the threads once clamped.

The area of the pics is not where the problem is likely to be. The flange that bolts to the trans and the pieces that go on the u-joint at more likely to not be seated correctly. Try bolting the flange in place without the joint and shaft then turn and look for 'wobble'.

The first thing I'd check is the install/bolt to the trans. Looks to me as it the flange surfaces aren't seated squarely. Should be easy to see by just looking squarely at ujoint and mating parts while turning the driveshaft by hand.

12v started during the 56 model year. I am using a 56 plymouth engine and its starter in my truck. But I think the starter drive and flywheel have to match, early flywheels have a different tooth count. Sorry, don't remember the details but it may be possible to change just the drive.

Can't see your gasket, but be sure to use one with a metal sealing ring on its ID. The type that do not have that don't work as well. Grade 8 bolts are OK but really overkill. Even GR5 is more than enough, I always use fine thread bolts and nuts as they create more clamping pressure as a given torque, as compare to coarse threads. Of course, be sure the manifold surface and the pipes mating flange are flat and aligned as closely as possible.

New bearings are probably metric, vs original were inch sizing. Really common to find replacements for older measurements are not available, just a close metric equivalent.

I know I sound like a broken record, but it still sounds like a lack of airflow. Have you tried a fan in front of the radiator? I've used my big floor fan in the shop to do such tests. Even run engines with no fan, just my garage fan blowing on the radiator. If that helps, a better fan is much cheaper than a better radiator!

Yes, or maybe from a later model Mopar.

So, not the original radiator. Got any idea how it compares to the original in capacity?

anything helps. Nothing helps better than the blue wrench!

The red part is interesting. first part results in a cooler flow into the block so that mostly offset the increased heating. Net is probably a wash. Still think it's airflow, not water flow.

chevys are neg ground. Interesting 'cause GMCs of the same year were +. Both General Motors products!

IMHO, heat rising at idle is more indicative of reduced airflow coolant issues. Our flathead idle really slow compare to most(all?) more modern engines. Not much air happening there. Quick check, assuming you have a fairly large fan in your home, sit it directly in front of the radiator, as close as possible and repeat the test.

I don't know what year you are working on, but my 56 mounts with 4 bolts through the outer bed boards and either the frame directly or a bracket, depending on front or rear.

Gotcha Sam. We both understand how it works but describe it differently. At cruise and moderate vacuum the timing will be advanced to promote fuel economy and cool running. Upon application of throttle vacuum drops and the spring retards the timing. As soon as vacuum rises advance is added. So it does retard timing but only by removing that which it had added. too high rear gears or hot rod cams can drop cruise vacuum to the point that the advance never happens ruining mileage. I elected to do the slant six mod and use the later advance can. Much more available and affordable.

Yes. Comp stoke only. Otherwise the exh would not be off the lobe