James_Douglas

I would ask the second shop to remove all the manifolds, it only takes 15 minutes unless something is rusted and then it takes 30 minutes. I would then take the intake and exhaust manifold apart and have them both sandblasted and then examine them. I have seen there a new exhaust system has been put on a car and therefore you have more back pressure on the engine. If there is a hole between the floor of the intake and exhaust manifold (not uncommon) then with the greater back pressure of a "good" exhaust system the air gets pushed up into it. I would also call Vintage Power Wagons and order their Stud, Washer and Nut kit. Have the second shop, once they are SURE that both manifolds are good paint them, use the new studs, use new gaskets between the manifolds and the manifolds and the block and put it back in. Then and only then if there is still and issue, have them adjust the valves and look for one that is stuck. You can also run one tank of gas with some Marvel Mystery oil in it. I do that if I am heading to Reno from San Francisco or over Grants Pass into Oregon with the car. Good luck, James

Nobody likes a smarts ass :-)

I have experienced where the linkage has an issue. Bent, replaced and wrong length and the like. You can get into a situation where you THINK you are in first but you really are in third. On my '47 there is a VERY fine line in the adjustment to get it so that it will shift into first and second without any grinding. It took some time and attention to detail to get it correct. If you go a little too far "toward the second gear" in the adjustment when you shift into what you think is first gear it is really going into third. The definitive way to tell is to: 1. Have a tach on the engine and note the idle RPM. 2. With the rear wheels off the ground, put car into "first gear" 3. Use a hand held tach with the little wheel on the end and place it on the tire tread. If the tire RPM is not the same as the engine rpm you are not in first gear. You can try it in third gear and it should be the same as the engine rpm. James

One thing to be on the lookout for... Many years ago I rebuilt my three speed. I used a NOS input shaft. I went to put the trans in and it went was tight. I was bitching about it as I was "sucking" the Trans to the block. My buddy, in his late 70's at the time, standing next to the car told me to watch that I do not ~~~CRACK~~~ and ear on the transmission. $%^$^ I yelled. You got it, I cracked the ear on the Trans just as he was talking and I was say ya, ya ya... When all the dust settled, lucky I had another trans and used that case, it was the NOS input shaft. Mine was for a fluid coupling. The book said it was supposed to be 1.00 Inch in diameter. Turns out mine was 1.xx inch. It was over. With a new bushing in the fluid coupling it would not slip in. So, the lesson learned is to use a bore measurement tool and make also measure any new shafts and make dame sure they will fit. Do not assume it will. James.

Ok, but can someone explain to me what the functional difference is between "means use" and "means supersedes" is? Does "Use" mean that it existed as a part number for something else and will work so just use it? Does "Supersedes" mean that a new part was issues that replaces the old one but is not used in anything else? James

In the event that someone is following this thread down the line... Here is a photo on my desk of the complete LATE fluid drive seal assembly. James

What does the "S" or "U" indicate in the column after the part number? James.

I was thinking of a part that would go OVER the output shaft like the flywheel and bolt down using the stock flywheel nut...one that stick out and "mimic" a torque converter. I have also thought of the same for the crankshaft end. Something that would bolt to it and look like a flat plate with 11 inch "flexplate" threaded holes. If I can come up with that, I think that the torqe converter houses like ATI could them mount them into their regular machines and lathe the weld off, change the bearing, and weld them back and an balance them. Next week I am going to call ATI and talk with them. I watched a bunch of videos they have on their site and it I spend the time and money to make the parts...I do not see what they would care about doing it. At that point to them it would be just another converter... If I can make this happen then the jigs would fit in a small box and anyone could barrow them to get their fluid couplings rebuilt. Yes, the little flywheel and clutch would have to be balanced separately, but if it was, I doubt that "mate up" would be any worse than a new clutch hung on an old coupling. I am thinking this is a better way to go. Thoughts? James

I did that in high school on my cars. I also have shown people how to do it. I can tell you, having the machine is a lot faster and less of a mess to clean up. As I get older, I like easy...

I have a Sun Machine and Sun Distributor Machine. I find I use the Distributor Machine a lot, the big tester not much. I only have one base for the large machine. I am trying to shed stuff I do not use. I have been thinking of selling the big machine, but keeping the base for the distributor machine and keeping all the other hand held and tune up stuff in the base. That would open some tool box space. I would also put my brake shoe Arc Machine on the top. James.

So, I find the part I am looking for on ebay at a very good price. In fact, I find two. So I buy them for $10 each. The same vendor has one more listed for over $50. A week later the vendor cancels the order and the ebay system shows the cancellation was initiated by "the buyer". The vendor then emails me in the ebay system telling me they cannot find them in the warehouse and to try Northwest Transmission Products for the part. All the while he still has one more listed on ebay for $50 or so dollars. I have been buying parts form this vendor for years. Crap like this really pisses my off. I have real doubts about is they could not find the parts in the warehouse or the finally figured out they had miss priced the part. Over several emails I asked about the part as I wonder about if we were talking about the same part for the price. He said it was not the part I was looking for even after I sent he a photo of it. The suberceedance book, thanks, shows it is. I think they screwed up and will not stand by their agreement to sell them; If they could not actually find the other parts then he should have said he would honor the sale with the other part. This guy just lost a long time customer. The stupidity of short term thinking American business people.

One of the things I am noticing is that the bore in the blocks are getting too warn. It is inducing side movement even with new lifters. In my next block I am going to have the bores opened up and bronze lined back to specification and use new lifters. James.

I really need to get some of those! I did get a 1971 Born Warner overdive interchange booklet recently. I am hoping I can score some parts on eBay by finding part numbers for for other cars that used some of the same internal parts from other companies. I have done that in other areas from time to time with success. The big key is to have the books to know what to hunt for. Often people post on ebay a manufacturer number as opposed to an auto company number. Thanks for the photos, I will go hunting for some of those books. James

The instructions are different for the units with the built in clearance and the ones that do not...use the wrong one with the wrong instructions and you will be off by a lot. Here is my set of operating instructions for the model 850 and 8000 and later units with the built in clearance. See the addendum file. It is hard to read so I retyped it and added it to the end. James OneFile1750 Ammco.pdf

Now you really should not have told me you have some supercedance books that specifically show old number and the new ones... So...Any chance you can tell me if the following have a supercedance number? 1320560 1320561 1320556 1320557 1320559 James. PS. I have one of the 1946 to 1954 Chrysler giant parts books, but it does not show older numbers just the latest one. What do the supercedance books look lije to I can keep an eye out for one?

What is interesting is that in the early Ammco arcers when using the machine you had to do the math for the clearance and then set the dial. In the later machines, I have the insert to the instructions, they built the clearance into the machine so you just set the dial. I have seen people with problems that had shoes arced in an Ammco machine and it was because the operator did not know which machine they were using. They look the same, the only way to now about the change is by model number. James

What has me going is that I cannot find any reference other than in the Service Bulletin for the 1320-558 part number. I suspect that for some reason the part number changed to 1320-448, but I cannot figure out why. All the Parts Books just show the early 854-362 and the later 1400-211. That is why I asked. Scratching my head. I am wondering if there was a change to the spring load either stronger or weaker that lead to the change. James.

I need the part number for the Fluid Coupling Seal Spring. They changed it staring in June 1950. I need the part number after that. I have 1320-558 later books show 1400-211. What I want to know is does a late 1950 or early 1951 show 1320-558 or 1400-211 ? Thanks, James

I agree. I wish I had more information on that. I talked with the company last week that purchased Gyrol from Howden. They said that the fins and the oil hole is what most likely would toss the thing off balance. He suggested that IF we marked the housing(s) in multiple places and made sure that we welded it back in the same spot and took care to lay down a consistent weld...he felt that we would not have an issue. I REALLY would like to find a way to check the bearing without cutting it open. As to Snipers comment...bearing manufacturing technology has come a long way in 75 years. James

Tom, All ISO fluid is not the same. When I had the MOPAR factory fluid analyzed, it had two additives. One was a rust inhibitor and the second was an anti-foaming agent. When I talked with the Engineer at Gyrol, who licensed the technology to Chrysler and still makes industrial fluid couplings, he said the same thing. If you read my write up on fluids you would have noted that I SPECIFICALLY stated that one should use Mobile DTE Light Circulating Fluid 32. The full specification is below: Grade ISO 32 Air Release Time, 50 C, min, ASTM D3427 3 Copper Strip Corrosion, 3 h, 100 C, Rating, ASTM D130 1B Density @ 15 C, kg/l, ASTM D4052 0.85 Emulsion, Time to 3 mL Emulsion, 54 C, min, ASTM D1401 15 Flash Point, Cleveland Open Cup, °C, ASTM D92 218 Foam, Sequence I, Stability, ml, ASTM D892 0 Foam, Sequence I, Tendency, ml, ASTM D892 20 Kinematic Viscosity @ 100 C, mm2/s, ASTM D445 5.5 Kinematic Viscosity @ 40 C, mm2/s, ASTM D445 31 Pour Point, °C, ASTM D97 -18 Rust Characteristics, Procedure A, ASTM D665 PASS Rust Characteristics, Procedure B, ASTM D665 PASS Turbine Oil Stability Test, Life to 2.0 mg KOH/g, h, ASTM D943 5000 Viscosity Index, ASTM D2270 102 Make note of the Copper Strip Corrosion rating. At the end, notice the "1B" what this says is that this oil has the lowest rating on the ASTM copper stip test meaning it will not harm any copper or brass parts. Also, there is no detergent in this oil as there is in motor oil and ATF. The only other part that is not steel is the graphite seal and I doubt that the oil would bother with that. But to be sure, I have email American Graphite who made and still makes seals asking them. James.

I can say that if one drives a '40's car in daily traffic in a Large City like San Francisco that one does appreciate the fluid coupling. When you roll up to a stop sign or light on a hill with people who have zero knowledge of a stick shift and are 2 feet off of your rear bumper... In California if you were to roll back and hit someone, even lightly, you would be at fault, and you would pay a lot to fix their plastic bumpers. Since my back is bad, serious issues with the disc's at L3 & L4, I can get some pretty good pain running down my legs. Pushing on a clutch all time does not help. In my case, the 1947 Desoto IS the car we drive. We own nothing older than 1949. So, although the standard clutch is superior in power at acceleration and at slip (none) at highway speed, the fluid coupling does have its advantages. Tod, thanks for the hint on the Skinned Knuckles article. I will hunt it down. My plan is to build the jig so that it can be mounted on most larger lathes to take the weld off and then weld it back up. I also plan on loaning it out if anyone else wants to use it. I also have a complete set of fluid drive tools. The only real PITA thing with these units is the bearing inside. Everything else can be had from the outside. Since Chrysler used the "low line" FAF bearings it is not surprising that some of them are starting to go. The best insurance to make sure a good bearing stays that way is to change the fluid every 5 to 7 years. Foaming fluid can have an effect on the lubrication of the bearing. Also, since according to the engineer at Gyrol the housings will allow over years some vapor to get inside, the anti-rust additives are also not a bad thing to get refreshed every now and then. James.

One of the things I have been thinking about is the efficacy of building the jig then seeing if we could use some of the "high end" sonic tools to determine the state of the bearing in a fluid coupling. I know it is used in industry all the time. If one could find a way to see if the bearing was still good without opening it up that would be a big deal. I know of two coupling personally that had bearing failures. Both of these were high mileage cars that were driven on a daily basis in and around the greater San Francisco Bay Area. In one case it was a person that used the car for their job and it was her only car. I got a call from the one shop in town I trust if I don't want to do something. They said she was screwed and wanted to know if I had any spare couplings. I had one that was "rebuilt" by a company years ago before they went out of business. I sold it to them at my cost so they could get her back on the road. You should have heard the racket when the bearing starts to go. I have that old one and it is first up on the cut open list. I have a few others and like I said above, if they was a way to check the bearing without opening it up, that would be a good thing. *************** As an aside, in an indirect response to the current thread on the fluid. I do not understand the mentality of telling people not to drain and put new fluid in the couplings. The factory never intended for the units to run forever. The VP of Engineering at Gyrol told me that the additives break down in 5 to 7 years even in the cans. The unopened can I had analyzed showed that the additives had broken down. The couplings have air in them and as such the fluid will foam without the additives and foaming lowers the power transfer. The anti-rust will die and the moisture in them will slowly eat at the bearing. I just don't get it. *************** James.

Loren, I will keep that in mind. Interestingly...I was going to but a turbo on the new engine and use the holley 2BBL sniper. But all the turbo plumbing.... I think I am going to source a Mac VS-57 Supercharger instead of a turbo. The V-57 was designed with that pulley that changes size and keeps the thing at about 5 pounds of boost. That is a good thing so that I do not need an air cooler and detonation should not be an issue. My calculations on 5 pounds of boost on a 265 with VE of 70% tells me I should hit about 140 to 150 HP. Hopefully that will help move the thing over the mountains. ******* On the sleeve, my main concern is to figure out what they made the things out of. The spring (NOS) is on my desk and I think any decent spring company can make those. The snap ring is likely something that I can get that is a stocking item. The copper sealing ring will be a litter harder to deal with, although perhaps the ones that I get from Aircraft Spruce can be had in a larger size. The spring retainer and the sleeve is the hard parts. American Graphite can make the seal and there is a guy on ebay that seems to have a lot of them... I had an email from the production engineer who is with the "new" company that that got the old Gyrol line from Howden. He was helpful in telling me how to approach the balance issues. Interesting that Rawb sent me emails with the photos of the ones he has cut open. It used a FAF bearing which is the Timken "low line" economy bearing line. So the Chrysler engineers did not worry to much about the bearing quality. I find that very interesting. I winder if one of their better bearings would yield any power gains.... So much fun when we start re-engineering things! James

I disagree based on my research. Read the following and be advised. (This thread is in the system if one looked). ******************** Technical Note on MOPAR Fluid Couplings (Fluid Torque Couplings are NOT covered by this Technical Note. Copy/Publish at will so long as you copy the entire note.) By James Douglas – San Francisco Having run several types of oil in MOPAR “Fluid Couplings” over the years and heard many recommendations, I decided to see if I could approach the issue of what lubricant to use in one of MOPAR’s Fluid Couplings by a more scientific method. As is well known, Chrysler instructed all owners to use “MOPAR Fluid Drive Fluid” only in their Fluid Couplings. Problem is, MOPAR stopped making it decades ago. My first stop was Chrysler Historical. After a month of looking, I was told that they do not have any of the original engineering information as to the specifications of the fluid. Then I headed off into internet land to hunt down anything I could find on the subject from ORIGINAL sources. I managed to find an original Chrysler Question and Answer sheet from 1939 about fluid drive from Chrysler Engineering. In it they stated: “…The proper fluid is a low viscosity mineral oil, which also servers to lubricate the bearing enclosed in the coupling. The pour point is such that the oil will pour at the lowest anticipated temperature, and has no corrosive effect on the steel parts of the unit.” All well and nice, but not enough to figure out exactly what they used as fluid. Later in the same document they talk about the types of metal used and the carbon-graphite seal. Hum, carbon-graphite seal. I did some more digging for a few months and turned up a can of unopened original MOPAR Fluid Drive Oil. An analysis of that oil, and some more literature I ran across, stated that the original fluid was a pure-base mineral oil with a Saybolt Viscosity of between 100 and 150. The fluid had a Viscosity Index of greater than 80. The fluid had anti-foaming and anti-oxidation additives. It specifically did NOT have any seal swelling agents as these can attack the carbon-graphite seal and the copper in the bellows. This last specification eliminates most modern transmission fluids. After finding several formulas to convert Saybolt Viscosities to Kinematic Viscosities, it appears that the best match to the original specification is ISO 22 or ISO 32 oil. However, the ISO 22 is just below 100 Saybolt and the ISO 32 is much higher than 100 Saybolt. Based on a period (c.1947) Lubrication Industry article on fluid couplings that had the following admonishment: “Contrary to popular supposition any attempt to use a higher viscosity fluid would actually reduce the torque transmitting ability of the coupling since torque-transmission is dependent upon a high circulation of fluid between the impeller and runner and is not caused by any viscous drag between the two.” During my continued research on the history of the Fluid Coupling, I ran across the fact that the original company that licensed the fluid coupling technology to Chrysler is still in business and still making fluid couplings for industrial applications. After a couple of weeks of digging, I found a senior engineer from that company that would have a long technical talk with me on fluid couplings. In essence, he agreed with the period information I quoted above. He added that the lowest viscosity oil that would still provide for bearing lubrication is the one to use in theory. However, he did say that unless the fluid coupling bearing has been replaced and is know to be very high quality then err on the heavy side viscosity wise. Just don’t over do it, he stated. I was also told that normal hydraulic fluid does not have large amounts of anti-foaming agents in them as they usually do not have large amounts of air in the systems to foam in the first place. A fluid coupling is only filled to 80% and as such has lots of air in it. Therefore, when looking for fluid coupling oil, one must look for an oil that is a “Circulating Oil” which has a lot of anti-foaming additives in it. I was also informed that the additives tend to have a shelf life in the can, or in use, of 5 to 7 years and it should be changed at that time. I was also told that the couplings are actually somewhat permeable and water vapor will work its way into and then back out, when hot, of a steel fluid coupling. Very little amounts, but apparently is does go on. I was also told to never use engine oil or ATF as both would cause problems in the long run. Based on the research and discussions I have come to the conclusion that ISO 32 hydraulic oil with the proper additives and VI (Viscosity Index) above 80 is a suitable replacement for the original MOPAR fluid drive fluid. ISO 22 would be a better exact match, but only if the quality and condition of the bearing is know in a particular coupling. The oil I have identified that meets the specification, with a higher general viscosity to deal with the age of the bearings, is: Mobile DTE light circulating oil ISO 32. This oil is available at Granger. I have run this oil for about six months in San Francisco city traffic as well as up steep mountains on very hot days. The coupling works well. I have noticed, and other car people have as well, that the car seems to move out from a dead stop to 10 MPH better with the fluid. Only a before and after session on a dynamometer would tell for sure, but I feel that it moves out much faster. Classic car owners are advised to use this information at their own risk. I am not a fluid coupling engineer, a bearing engineer, or a lubrication engineer. I have done my best to find out what was in the original MOPAR Fluid Drive Fluid. This effort is in essence industrial archeology and should be carefully considered prior to use. As a post scrip in 2014. I ran across and old Gyrol book that talks about the filling of the fluid couplings. In short, how much you fill it affects the torque-stall curve. Chrysler set that by the position of the hole in the bell housing. However, if one is to fill it a little less or a little more one can change the curve. Do so at you own risk and never fill it past 90% so it has air in it to compress less you blow the thing up!. James Douglas San Francisco

There are two different post WWII seal assemblies. The early one with the bellows have a bad habit of cracking and leaking. That is why Chrysler came up with a new design. I have the factory service bulletins on it. I have secured all the parts for the later version and did it for about $300. Chris at AndyB wanted $500 plus. The problem is that there are seven parts to the seal assembly. Non of the parts are compatible with the earlier ones. It is all or nothing. I have 4 coupling not counting the ones in my cars. I plan on tearing them down and if I am lucky, some of them have the later assembly. It will be interesting to see what my machinist wants to draw up the sleeve so it can be made on the CNC. The material cost is nothing. Once a computer file exists, the cnc can spit these out in short order as there is not much to them. James.