James_Douglas

I second that. The gear is hour glass shaped. It is designed so that as it wears one can take up the clearance at the center and when on turns it will not bind. If it is tight on the turns then it is very likely that someone who did not know what they were doing adjusted it too tight. As an aside, tire size makes a BIG difference in steering effort. What I changed the Desoto Suburban to the Yokohama R700-15 tires it felt like I added power steering to the car. Those tires have the same contact patch as the factory tires. The other thing is thick oil grease does nothing and will actually cause wear as the grease cannot get deep into the worm bearings and races. Use factory specified lubricant. I would recommend pulling the box out. Replace the bushing on the sector (output) shaft as the are almost always worn out. Also, but in a new seal so the prescribed oil does not run out. Usually the worm gear bearings are ok, but, their pre-load is determined by paper shims on the end plate. You can get an old hand pull scale on ebay if you look around. Then follow the Service Manual, or look at the booklet on the Imperial Website (http://www.imperialclub.com/Repair/Lit/Master/028/index.htm), and set the worm gear and sector shaft as they tell you to. I suspect that a good cleaning, the work I stated above, and careful attention to detail and the thing will be good for another 100K miles. James.

I had George's wiring in my case and I took it off. I did not feel the need to have the toggle switch. Since the Desoto Suburban is so heavy, I always have to kick it out of OD when heading up a hill. I just floor it to kick it out and then back off the throttle a little and it stays out unless I take my foot completely off the throttle again. As to the switch in the engine bay...I made a bracket, that used one of the drivers side threaded holes in the cylinder head, to mount the switch. I then made up a linkage arm that had a steel arm to activate the switch. This was much "cleaner" for me than using it on the carburetor and gave me a good granular adjustment.

Thank you very much for posting the photos and sharing your knowledge on this subject. I need to go take a look at my friends spare flathead 8 with the casting (raised) word special on it. If memory serves me correct, that engine has steel tubes, like the one in your photo, going to EACH lifter bore hole thus providing pressure oil to each bore. I am assuming that they are mechanical lifters but he has never had it apart. I will take a photo of it in the next few days and if it looks like I suspect, I will post it. I am wondering if I could round pressure oil to each bore and use a roller hydraulic lifter? My concern would be too much oil pressure loss out of the lifters. James.

I would love to see a photo of both a hydraulic lifter and a photo of how they "feed" it in the block. I have a friend that purchased a spare 8 cylinder L-Head for his 1946 Chrysler. That block, with RAISED CAST lettering has the world "special" nobody has ever figured out what that special means. The one thing that I noted and it may be that all the eights have it, I don't know, is steel inverted flare tubing feeding all of the lifter bores. I do not know if that was just to add pressure oil to the mechanical lifters or if there is something like hydraulic lifters in there. The engine has never been taken apart. I am curious as to how they did the hydraulic lifters as I would like to modify my 265 block to use them. Any photos would be appreciated. James.

http://wilcap.com/webdoc8.html They have the GM adaptor plate set up. I just ran across a IND 265 and purchased it. It turns, assuming it looks good on tear down, I will use it in my big Desoto. We looked at all the ways to get a 4000-5000 pound classic car to have a modern engine in it and the steering issues basically means that the entire front end would have to go. Even at that there is nobody making a power rack or an electric power assist for cars over 4500 pounds... So, we are going to build the following: 1. 265 with holly 2 bbl throttle fuel injection, and cam from Earl, cast iron headers, and the like. 2. GM overdrive automatic using Wilcap adaptor. 3. Don Smiths solution on the Desoto Suburban and use a late 1960's Pontiac Station wagon power steering (This works for the large wheelbase cars not the regular size cars). 4. A set of custom built DC motors that will electrically drive the power steering pump and the AC compressor. 5. Convert to 12 volt neg and use a 100AMP alternator to drive the above. We will not get to this for about a year. If you move ahead with the GM transmission let me know as I would be interested in how it goes. James.

Can anyone tell me how to ID the date of a 265 Industrial motor? I could not find anything on the block that would ID it by date. I just have the serial number on the block and plate on the side. James.

*************************************** Fluid Drive Fluid Tech Note ************************* 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 FluidCouplings. 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 fluidcouplings 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 drivefluid. 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

Hi All, Is there a way to ID the year of a IND-265 industrial block from the serial number (13909C) ? Thanks, James

If anyone is using a Optima battery and has odd problems with charging over time, go look at the archives on the subject from me. Some Autolite voltage regulators do not work with generators and optima batteries. James.

I have had erratic reading on NOS senders. Fill a bucket with gas and stick it in and test it. I had one that read off on the bench but worked fine when submerged...

I can tell you that my 1949 Desoto, first sold in Virginia and then moved to California in about 1955, had the VIN number on the drivers door listed on the Virginia paperwork but the engine number on the California paperwork. Also, the number is stamped on the frame mid frame and NOT over the wheel arch. When I restored the 1949 Desoto a few years ago, I filled out the paperwork to change the Pink Slip and registration slip to have the car VIN and not the engine number on all the paperwork. If you Deck The Block on one of these engines the engine number will be obliterated. James.

I can tell you that this is not always true. Living in the middle of San Francisco in a residential, high density, neighborhood, I have had less hassle with the neighbors than most of my friends in the suburbs or small towns here in California. In particular when it comes to working on my cars.

I always flare mine to fit the block. More important is to look at the plate at the back of the water pump. It is most times so far off that it is not a good match at all. I "port match" the back of the water pump to the block so that flow will not have turbulence and most of the water will go into the tube. I even had my machine shop jet cut me a few stainless steel plates for the water pumps. It is amazing how after only 5 or 6 years the back plates start to degrade inside the water pump.

Hello, I would recommend that you sit down and read a copy of my post of many years ago. The fluid couplings work by the velocity of the fluid pushing the internal fins. They do not work passed on any pressure or on the viscosity of the oil. Also, if you do not have a dashpot in working order the car will stall often when coming off of a stop sign. In addition to all of that, I ran across a Chrysler tech note that said that a fluid coupling should not be left engaged for longer than 5 minutes at idle. So, if you are stuck in a traffic jam, put it in neutral until the traffic starts to move. *************** 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

I may have run across a bell housing and flex plate off of a tug that has a Plymouth engine on it. I want the bell housing and plate to put an automatic in my car. James.

That booster is a bitch to rebuild. I have two in a box that I took apart and was going to use on my 1949. The main valve in it is aluminum and it turns to crud. Part are very hard to get and several of the rebuilding houses would not touch it. The one that did wanted a small fortune to do it. So, all the parts sit in a box. James.

Hi All, Is the rear of the smaller Plymouth-Dodge 230 engine the same as the larger Chrysler-Desoto 251 engine as to bell housing pattern? Do the transmissions bolt right up and can be swapped between them? Thanks, James

One thing to keep an eye on is the clearance when you stick the 2nd gear back on. It rides against a step the main shaft. Even with a new snap ring on mine, and a new 2nd gear, it was beyond the specification. That step face wears. I had to take the new 2nd gear to an industrial hard chrome shop and have them add a few thousands to the rear face of that gear to make up for the wear. It has run great for over 10 years now and I do drive this car a few days every week here in San Francisco city traffic. Also, pop out the little plugs in the case and clean out the little slider shaft, about a 1/2 inch long, that goes between the shifting rods. It is missed by a lot of people, even some so-called professionals who rebuild these things. James.

I am glad to see you like the Coker tire. I have a friend with a '58 Cad Eldorado Biarritz Convertible that had bad luck with Coker tires. Are your tires that you purchased the "Coker American Classic Bias Look Radial" line? The American Classic Bias Look Radial is the only whitewall tire (760R15) I could find that is close in the size and load to the RY-215. I will order them later today. Best, James

I have 6 inch rims. These tires had driven nice and been fine except for the new flat spot issue. I was planning on changing them out next year at eight year point. These are DOT approved tires. see https://www.summitracing.com/parts/yok-21501 I know at least a dozen people who use these tires. I have them on the '49 and I know someone who has them on a 1946 Chrysler T&C and a 1937 Cad. A lot of the Packard guys use them as well. In my case they get more "real world" use on the 1947 then most old cars. All of the dozen or so people I know who are using them don't put much mileage on them. I drive the car several times a week in the middle of San Francisco as well as 160 mile round trips to my place out of town at 65-70 MPH a couple of times a month. I have warned my friends to up the pressure to at least 55 PSI even if the ride is a little stuff and see what happens. In my case, I have to decide if I want to order another set from Diamondback or try Coker's new radial that looks like an old bias tire... James.

See https://www.yokohamatruck.com/public/img/tires/31/bulletin_en.pdf James

Hi all, As a rule, I do not use product supplier names on forums. But in this case I am as it is a safety issue. A few years back I had an issue with my diamondback tires. The splice where they vulcanized the white rubber to started to show a crack line. Diamondback was not too helpful, the whole time accusing me not checking the tire pressure or hitting it hard on a curb while parking. It was like they were reading a script! How the left rear would be hit...how many times does one parallel park on one way streets on the left side, even here in San Francisco. In any event, although I have spent almost $5K in tires with them in the last 7 years, I let it drop as it is just cosmetic and you really cannot see it unless you are right up close. About 6 months ago the car developed a "thump, thump,thump". It had all the earmarks of a bearing or universal joint going bad. Perhaps even a spider gear in the rear end. It has gotten worse as time goes on. Several professional mechanics in their 60's to 80's who all are long time classic car men could not fine it. I tried for months without any luck. We just could not hear exactly where is was coming from. Today we had the car on the rack at a gas station - shop (full service gas, old time shop, vintage 1930's gas station) that does my oil and full under car lubrication. While we had it up in the air we went over the car real good. We could not fine a thing. When one of the guys spun the drivers side front tire. In the daylight you could see a severe high/low spot. One the passenger side, we spun that tire and it had one about half as bad. That has to be it. These tires are seven years old and have about 25K miles on them, perhaps a little more. Now it is possible that the problem is due to under inflating the tires. When I purchased them, I called Yokohama and asked about the 60 PSI pressure. Yokohama told me that I could go down to 40 PSI as my car come in at a little under 5000 pounds. A few years back the outer edges of the tires had that look like they had some under-inflation wear so I increased the pressure to 50 PSI. These tires are rated at over 2000 pounds each or 8000 pounds total. I also run them on the freeway and at times have gone a steady 70 MPH and on occasions up to 75. The tires in the Yokohama catalog show the maximum speed as 65 MPH. (Which I did not find out until well after I purchased them.) So, the question is: Did I push the tires on pressure (too low) and Yokohama gave me bad advice that I could run 40 PSI? Is the freeway running up to sustained 70 MPH the problem? Is the once in a while 75 MPH the problem? Or, is there a problem with these tires in their construction? The rear tires show no problem. I know that a LOT of people have recommended these tires for the 1930's and 1940's cars. I did when I got them years ago. Heck, I like them very much as they are the same diameter, about 29 inches, and the same contact patch, at 4.5 inches, as the original bias ply tires. The contact patch at 4.5 makes steering way better. Plus the big white walls look great. Now I have to decide what tires to get. As this is the car I drive all the time, no new cars for me, I need tires that not only look correct, but function. Since I suspect that one or both of these tires could come apart in the future if I keep running them, the flat spot - Bulge is good size and producing a wheel trump that is very noticeable, I wanted to write up what is going on for others to be aware of. Best, James

One thing people should be aware of... On my Desoto's if you use rear studs it is hard, to impossible, to change a tire on the road. You have to jack up the body so high, to let the wheel hang, that if you have a flat on the road changing the tire is not an easy thing to do. The rear fender is just too low. James

W.P. Chrysler was a cheep SOB. He was very focused on price and efficiency. In those days, the companies (Chrysler, Desoto, Dodge, Plymouth)were very distinct entities and had individual supplier histories. Dodge had a very long relationship with strongberg. Chrysler with Carter. I suspect that it was both price and relationship that drove a lot of decision making before 1950. In 1946-1947 however there was a disruption of Carter carbs due to a strike. Chrysler shipped cars without carbs. Then they shipped a kit to use a Strongberg in place of a Carter. I have the technical bulletin on this in my files with the part numbers and service information. The Strongberg is a more expensive carburetor back in the day when new compared to the Cater. James

"The literature I have seen from Chrysler does not recommend ever changing the Fluid Drive oil, just topping it up annually." I doubt that Chrysler ever thought that their fluid would be in a coupling more than 20 years. I think the above is bad advise. To see why read my very old post.