jeffsunzeri

Must say, that is one bitchen' truck! Clearly modified wheelbase.

OEM? I didn't know MoPar made those. Even if threads are bad (just two for the thermostat housing) it would still be a great find. Aluminum can be more easily repaired than cast iron. Photo?

If by saying you are "redoing the brakes" you mean adapting discs, why? And you should not head forward into a 12 volt alteration without serious thought either. Why not repair the car the way it came and enjoy it that way first? Many people believe that these cars are fine performers just the way they came from the factory.

There should be no problem using your older MoPar for daily driving. I used my 1947 pickup for daily go-to-work for many years, bone stock in the '90's and early 2000's. Differences between GM and MoPar are generally: beefier frames, more robust brakes, much better electrical, better suspension components, fairly bullet proof drivetrain. I think the Carter carbs are far better than the Rochester, double leading shoe brakes are much better, and a lot of little things. If you keep your old MoPar bone stock, and well maintained, it should be a very reliable ride.

Inspiration!!! Awesome.

I believe you'll find tapped holes on the left side of the block just above the oil pan rail, aft of the distributor provided by mother Mopar for just this purpose.

I've been running a pickup with the evr-dry kit for over 30 years (same kit). You don't need the crush washer under the plug. It won't hurt if you leave it on though - no change. The kit keeps water from pooling around the plug and causing corrosion on the plug. The kit also stops corrosion between the tip of the plug and the terminal clip. I have three more flathead mopars which don't have the evr-dry kit. The kit looks cool and keeps things cleaner. If I had three more kits, I'd install them.

Assuming you don't have 4WD, its likely you have a truck assembled from WC-1 parts for a civilian purpose. A few of the earliest WC-1 had a Plymouth engine. Some more tell-tale aspects of the WC-1: - The windshield pushes out and has locking knobs on either side. - The windows edges are metal (so you can rest a rifle on them and not chip the glass). - Gascolator/filter on the left firewall. - Pull-out map table beneath the right dash.

More money has been wasted on replacing coils needlessly than on any other operation on old cars that I can think of. Leave your coil alone, and search for the problem elsewhere.

My tug with the 218 Industrial.

I swapped out the entire carrier section from a Plymouth to my '47 dodge rear end. Axles fit just fine, and was an easy 1 for 1 replacement.

I've used Industrial motors transplanted into road-going Plymouths. 218 CI. The only change I made was to the distributor. The Industrial engines run a distributor with no vacuum advance. The only other outward change from the car motors is that the industrial engines use studs to hold the head down. Cam profiles and compression ratios are not changed from the automobile motors up through about 1947, I believe, at least with the 218's. I have run a 218 industrial in a tug for a long time too. Great engine.

Generally, yes.

What reason would there be to go against the service manual's suggestion? Even if you are not planning on a trans rebuild, you will have a much easier time dealing with the engine/trans as a unit rather than trying to un-mate and mate later.

Do yourself a favor and put the distributor on a distributor testing machine. A truly rebuilt distributor with new springs, freed up advance weights, and new bushings with a perfectly straight quill will do wonders for the rebuilt motor.

Preferred method is to use cable cutting pliers (special jaws). Next best, wrap the area to be cut with masking tape to prevent fraying, and hold in a vice. Use a cutoff wheel (in an air die grinder, or second best an electric hand-held grinder) to make the cut. Third best, would be to use a sharp hack saw after wrapping the area with tape as above.

The 1954 Royal in tip top condition, steers and handles much differently than modern automobiles, and actually much differently than its contemporaries that have un-powered steering. That sort of "indistinct" feel is somewhat difficult to get used to for those to whom it is a new thing. I recall one or more articles from Tom McCahill from around 1956/57 or so talking about this. His verdict (and mine too) is that once a driver gets accustomed to the very power-assisted steering, especially in a larger car, it really makes your driving much more pleasurable and handling performance for the attuned driver is better than with non-power. You hear a lot of automobile "reviewers" and "test drivers" whine about overly powered steering in older (50's, 60's and 70's) cars and trucks, complaining about lack of feedback, and isolation from the "road feel". I say those folks are bad drivers who don't know squat about what they are driving and how to get the most from their cars' handling. Bottom line, try to live with and work with your Royal (after making sure everything is set correctly, and with good tires) and see if you can adapt your driving skills to the car. You may be very pleasantly surprised.

Entirely common. It won't hurt a thing to drill through the carbon to allow a welding rod to insert.

The silicone will infiltrate the joint creating inclusions that will ruin the joint, regardless of process.

1. Any Imperial, any year. 2. '47 New Yorker convertible. 3. '46/7 Civilian Power Wagon 4. '51 DeSoto 5. COE Dodge, most any year.

bang created a bent rod.

This is from the Carter AFB Selection and Tuning Guidelines publication #1601. My only copy is in .pdf format from which I can't cut/paste from my computer at work. I'll bet you can google it and find the publication. Although the table is intended for the 4bbl carb, the overall numbers are very cross compatible. All engines are air pumps to a certain degree, and the difference I believe you'll find from 1 4bbl, to 2 1bbl's, to 2 bbl.'s, won't be very great. It sounds like you've got enough technical sense to extrapolate from the factory suggestion. The Carter calculation of CFM is qualified as the air quantity passing through the carb at full throttle, with a specified vacuum below the throttle plate. In this chart, they are assuming 1.5" of vacuum.

For a 265 C.I. engine running up to 4,000 RPM, Carter suggests 295 CFM total carburetion.

I believe you are missing the return springs.

Midwest Military has some nice replacements. http://www.midwestmilitary.net/