3046moparcoupe

Thanks guys - I appreciate the education,....so DB4ya, it sounds like a specific spring tension is not a super big deal, as your experience has been the more the better,...I appreciate the feedback,....Rich, thanks as well, however question please,....in my picture above,...the shiny springs I wire wheeled, on the left side of the picture,...are the springs that came off our car,.....the black springs on the right side of the pic are the ones I just got from Bernbaum,....as you can see in the pic, the new ones from Bernbaum do have the sliding ends, the ones that came off our car, don't..... from your previous reply, I believe you were saying the springs with the sliding eye ends, on the right side of the picture, are the original type/design springs. Is that correct ? Steve

The springs on the left side of the attached pic came off the rear of our P15 Club Coupe. I've cleaned em up a bit and overall they seem in descent physical shape (a little pitting and gouges in places), but since I was placing an order to AB, I went ahead and ordered they're replacement spring for a 46 Plymouth,..part # G244,...which are shown on the right side of the pic. It would be nice to know which (if either ) look like the original spring intended by Mr Walter C...(they're both basically the same length, the same overall diameter, the hooks align the same, however I don't much care for the way the ends on the replacement springs slide in and out of the main spring body, as you can already tell that the metal is rusting on the hook shaft where it enters the spring body, so future point of failure,...depending on how stout the hook keeper is made inside the spring body, which can't be seen).. However my main thought was in not wanting to deviate from the spring tension originally designed for these brakes...and these replacement springs are made from a bit heavier gauge rod,.... If you folks who've forgot more than I'll ever know about all this stuff would care to reply back, we'd appreciate it. thanks again for the raisin' Steve

Makes sense guys,......I agree,..... one reason I posted, was in respect to a physical conversation I had with a friend (retired certified GM mechanic for 30 yrs) and he was remembering the snap on. matco, etc...hones as being more inthe range of a 400 - 600 grit..... thank you for your replys Steve

I've never had to replace or repair a wheel cylinder. In the process of doing a front to back replacement on the brakes on our P15. New lines, new master cylinder, disc brake conversion in front, and oem drum brakes on the rear. Was looking at just replacing the rear wheel cylinders until I read many of the posts archived here on the forum, where it has been some what of a crap shoot for many folks on here, in respect to issues associated with the new parts they received, so I decided to just slip these old cylinders apart and give them a look over. I was pretty surprised at how clean they were, one cylinder looks spotless like new and the other has a slight bit of reddish rust stain, however I can not feel any ridges, etc. in the bore. Even all the rubber's look good, and the internal rubber cups have nice sharp edges...still, I was placing an order - so I went ahead and ordered 2ea wheel cylinder rubber kits..... I would like to very gently hone the bores before I put them back together, so I started looking at the 3 stone brake hones on the market,....Oreilley's, Advance Auto, even the tool section of the hardware stores....everyone had the same little master cylinder/wheel cylinder 3 arm/stone hone, with the flex shaft,...and it averaged from $16 - $20. The grit on the stones of this brake cylinder hone, sold at all the places is spec'd at 240 grit..........I've never done this, and common sense would tell me it must be the tool (with everyone listing the same part),..but 240 grit sure seems coarse....reading the fine print on the listings states that you can hone or polish, depending on how firm you adjust the tension nut/spring on the hone, but still, 240 grit surprised me, seems too aggressive,....these are original Wagoner Lockheed wheel cylinders, so I wanna be careful and not mess em up... Anyone out there who'd like to help educate me on this, please come on, all reply's are welcome and much appreciated... Thank you again, P15/D24 forum.... Steve

Good info back as always..your reply's back clear up all my questioning... The shutoff valve makes good sense to me, ( versus the tube ) - and if the valve has worked fine then that also should mean the lower pickup tube section of the original style elbow tube, plays no significant role (hole drilled out or not)...I guess my reason for asking was in respect to the possibility of it being some kind of original design intended to vent, prevent cavitation, etc.. Don and Tim, I appreciate your always willing to help as well..Thanks again everyone for your patience and help in my education from being a long time "parts replacer".. Steve

Thanks much'o for all the great help received here on the forum lately. I'd be lost without it for sure. I've got my new water pump painted and ready to mount back on this stock flat six 218,..I also purchased a new bypass elbow and elbow distribution tube from A.B. the bypass elbow looks good, (has some kind of a light tan/brown thick coating on it which looks like it might hold up a while as is)...but the water bypass elbow tube is a tad different. my old tube (which is not in the best of shape with rust/cancer) has a small hole ( which looks to perfect to have not been drilled ) in the neck of the lower smaller tube portion of the elbow tube (the tube end that screws down into the bypass elbow housing)...this new bypass elbow tube doesn't have this hole.....wondering if I need to drill out a hole like the old unit ?? Also, while I'm here - this is sorta piddly a question - but what the heck I'll go ahead and ask,....the old elbow tube was built on a 90 degree angle (or maybe someone bent it to a 90 degree angle ?? ), anyway this new tube is built on a 45 degree angle....(not sure what the plating is on the new tube but it looks descent, almost like galvanized),..course the hose connection off this tube routes to the firewall or the back of the engine block depending on if your feeding heater cores or not,...plenty of space ( I suppose ) to compensate for the hose connection at the bypass elbow with the new tube now pointing more straight upwards toward the hood, than straight backwards towards the firewall like the tube was.......if anyone can tell me which is correct, I'd appreciate knowing...and there's not much rocket science in bending a piece of pipe, but then again if this 45 degree angle was the original setup..I'd just as soon not stress the finish on part and leave it alone, aside from as mentioned above,....what might be up in regards to drilling out the hole in the tube to match my old part. Thank you all for your help. Steve

ST63, thanks for the attachment to the scarebird site showing the dual master,....yesterday I went to the Scarebird website and did a search under mopar and I didn't find any mastercylinders,. only disc kits.....so I emailed Scarebird this morning asking if they had a dual mc for a 1946 Plymouth P15, 218, manual 3 speed on the column, and they replied back that they did not ?? I just took a closer look at the master cylinder in the picture (since I could not find any fitment application info on the mc listing), and I'm sure your way ahead of me here on this, but the master cylinder in that picture is a 3 bolt unit for sure, but it's turned 90 degrees out of clock in respect to a P15's oem mc....so it would require some engineering and fab work...the price is good compared to the others I've seen.... Steve..

st63, thanks for the replay back this way....I appreciate the question.....In reading all the past forum info I could find I don't believe I remember reading where anyone else had used a Scarebird dual master,....so I wasn't aware they offered one.. From what I read about the other dual master's folks had used - folks were having issues like: even more difficult to access than the stock oem master, now the dual master is located to where another hole must be cut in the floor for access, also some had issues with the pedals being moved 1/4-1/2" from their original position.....then there was also the extra cost associated with the dual master.....(with these kits being more expensive for the mopar than for the chevy and ford ). I've welded in floor pan and rebuilt the rockers on this car so moving the access port to the mc and trimming away at the pedal slots isn't out of my ability, however if there's a way around it I'd prefer to go that route....so I had decided I might just take it in stages , do the disk upgrade now and see what options might become available going forward regarding master cylinders.. Again , I wasn't aware of Scarebirds dual master - any info on that you could send this way would be appreciated.... I want the protection offered by a dual mc, but until that day,...and from the questions I've asked and from what I can tell about converting over,..I don't believe I would be making the brake system less safe than the original setup by just doing the disc conversion now and waiting on the dual mc until a later date (If I'm wrong here don't hesitate to comment),...In my mind, if it were a step backwards, it would have to relate to (if a leak is developed, would one system lose the fluid faster then the other, causing a quicker complete no brake situation ?),...(( have read where the fluid level must be maintained as the pads wear and the fluid level drops in the mc),...and so far from what I've read it seems there's no way to say one (drum or disk) would be worse than the other in this regard...so I figured I'd do the front disc's (also really like the idea of getting wheel studs rather than the old L & R hand thread lug bolts as I would like to put a chrome wheel (cragar /Torquethrust type) on the car..yet again, still I'd have the ability to go back to the original wheels if so desired.....and then work towards the best fitting dual mc setup I can find.... I'm not driving the car at this time,..I drove to Louisiana and picked the car up in July of 2014, backed it off the trailer into the garage, messed with the motor for a couple of weeks (pulled the oil pan and cleaned out the gunk in it, kitted the carb, new plugs, etc...) then started taking it apart to attack the worst cancer spots, etc....probably got another good 1-2 years before this projects on the road..... Steve

Thanks everyone so far for the input, it is much appreciated....I'm sure I would never want to go back to the original drum brakes, but options (ability to convert back to original) are always smart...could add value in the future... I agree with Tim, before posting this I read for about a week in the forum archives, (went through Don's experience with trying to plumb his dual master cylinder lines which routed on the wrong side of the unit ),...found the info on the member that had a very undesirable experience with the mfg in question here, in regards to customer service,..my understanding in the end, is that they did get the problem resolved,.. definitely something I don't want to go through,...but that said - that was the only bad experience I found in regards to this vendor, many other old posting I read listed folks who had used the SB disc kit with happy results...(do they get a gimme'' one time mulligan, ??). I emailed Mark at Scarebird, in regards to using the stock oem MC with his disk kit and he stated back that the 1" bore should work fine... again, if I've missed someone else out there with a horror story about this product, I'd sure like to know,... thanks for the replys back, this is a great forum. Steve

Need to make a decision and move forward in regards to a front brake decision.///stay oem drum and shoe, convert to disc,...Scarebird ?? As previously stated in the forum, the customer service associated with Mr Akers alias "Old Daddy/Rusty Hope" is absolutely second to none, really good communication and a good product, we just shared a couple emails on this subject, and he mentioned how much he thought of the folks here on the forum - really nice fella. however I do like the method utilized by Scarebird, which allows the car to be easily converted back to stock in the future, if desired....due to the lack of drilling and tapping. Trying not to box myself in on this, that said - the plan for now is to replace all brake lines, kit the oem mastercylinder and re-use it...(the oem brakes on this car did work when I purchased it and then immediately parked it and began taking her apart...master cylinder was not dripping, etc..but obviously I will take it apart and go through it...) ANYONE OUT THERE RUNNING A SCARBIRD DISC KIT UP FRONT WITH THE STOCK OEM MASTER CYLINDER....... 1946 p15 Plymouth Club Coupe ?? I've seen on Scarebirds ebay web site, where the question was asked of them, " will the disc kit that fits the 46-48 Plymouth 10" drum, 3 hole spindle,....work with the oem mastercylinder ?" and the ebay answer/reply back was YES... I realize my capitalized letters question above would be best answered by the Scarebird company itself,...but maybe some of my forum member brake guru's who've been there, done it, and "got the T-shirt can provide some real world experience and knowledge to my on-going mopar education..... From the forum archives I've learned enough to be dangerous, .... regarding valves, the master cylinder's elevation in respect to the wheel cylinder or caliper, etc....great info., but what I'm specifically reaching for here is in regards to the bore size of the oem master cylinder in conjunction with the Scarebird disc's,......I guess in the end just looking for a brake pedal that doesn't take an excessive amount of force and should last with proper fluid maintenance and normal driving conditions. Thanks in advance for the help, all replies encouraged and welcomed. (Chuck thank you for your patience with me in regards to this, I appreciate it),... Steve

Thank you all for your efforts...it is much appreciated....Don, I've probably got a max 32nd of slop in the pedal, (just enough that you can feel it wobble/rock when you exert side pressure on the pedal....in looking inside at the bushing, it appears to have worn a bit un-evenly as it's almost paper thin to nothing on one end....K.H...I like your recommendation of trying to find something with the waffle pattern to hold grease,..I'll give Mr Napa a try on that.....also I wouldn't normally think of looking for a used bushing to install, but in this case,...it just might sure be worth trying to locate one or better yet, the P15 brake pedal itself as a complete replacement....thank you Shel ny for keeping us in mind..... S.

Removed my master cylinder today. Brake pedal bushing looks good and is nice and snug. A bit of slop and play on my clutch pedal bushing. Master cylinder pedal post shaft is shiny and clean like new on both sides . Plymouth Passenger Car OEM parts manual shows the clutch pedal bushing to be a part " #871998 @ .8155 O.D. - S (steel) hand push fit " When I look at what's left of the existing clutch pedal bushing, I see what's left of the dimple pattern and the bushing looks to be made of copper or bronze....pretty much a match (material wise) for the bushing I see in the brake pedal ,.. in respect to eyeballing them both. Looking at my options in getting the new bushing machined and wondering now about copper/brass/steel ?? I don't expect the car's feeling's would be terrible hurt if the wrong material was used but on one hand it would be nice to use the strongest material possible just for the life of the part and the repair. I wasn't expecting to see steel listed for the clutch bushing, however it would also make sense to me that the clutch pedal operates under more load than the brake pedal does...course there are also different hardness's of steel, etc...and no sense in installing a bushing that's gonna promote wear on the pedal shaft itself,...I've read here where those aren't always readily available, and if so - they aren't cheap... McMaster Carr has a copper/iron mix high strength bushing that has a ( 3/4" I.d. , 7/8" o.d. x 1 1/4 " long ) which by my measurements should machine down to the proper size...(I expect anything we get machined up will have to have the lubrication hole drilled in it as the hole needs to be off centered in the bushing). I like the idea of the softer copper for the bushing, but if it's gonna wear prematurely I'd rather go with steel or something a bit harder... If it's a matter of the bushing lasting 20 yrs in copper and 30 yrs in steel, etc...I believe I would deem it a mute point and just use a copper bushing..but I don't have the experience to do more than just guess about it all.. Any help, suggestions, and/or experiences are appreciated... Thanks Steve

Bob, thanks for your effort and time with this, I appreciate the pics - they may just be the thing that brings this to light....the stepped washers I purchased look real close to what you show here but not exactly the same...(maybe different mfg's at the time made them slightly different but to perform the same function, guessing here, as I don't have the experience with this old stuff to know), I've attached 3ea close up pics of one of these washers I have. The 1st two pics are of each side of the washer, then the last pic attempts a side angle view to show how the rolled lip side of the washer is much smaller, this smaller side is definitely a rolled lip, as you can hang your fingernail underneath it....so similar I hate to say they are different, but if the pics are clear enough you'll see what I mean...thanks again for taking the time with this....I purchased 8 of them, so I'd have them for future, the fella on ebay still shows to have 5ea left if your interested, you can either search pp#1123332, or you can find them listed under ebay auction item no:131237916224. $5.00 ea free shipping... (pricey, but normal for rare stuff I suppose)... course after seeing your pics these may not even be the correct stuff, just because they were listed as PP#1123332, from a seller with a 100% rating, still doesn't mean these are the correct part... Steve

Bob, sorry not trying to be a dense goober here,...but - both sides of these washers have an inner raised section, ridge, circle, etc...whatever one would call it, but the raised section on both sides is not the same. One is twice the size of the other, with the larger one being a solid (ridge/ring/circle) of copper about 1/16 high and wide,...while the other side is a much thinner ( rolled/lip/flap) type (ridge/ring/circle) of copper with not nearly the meat of the other side (maybe the larger side is what your referring to when you said the inner raised portion).... I've searched through every part of this forums archives (I believe) and I found the 3ea pictures you had posted ( back in 2014 I believe it was). The best picture of the 3ea was the pic of the washer laying flat, off the car, on a table top surface .. you could tell by the cone shape of the larger outer diameter of the washer, which way it had been pulled when installed,...and from what I could tell in the pic,...that washer appeared to have been installed with the largest solid ring non rolled raised section, installed towards the wheel cylinder....which is opposite of the way I had thought it would go, because I thought I might be on to something in regards to the shorter rolled lip flap raised section being was less apt to handle the stresses/twisting/etc. of wrenching the brake hose on....just trying to clartify, thank you for your time with this. I appreciate it. Steve

I appreciate the reply's back from folks...but still no definite on which way they should be installed....I've stared at them long enough to have come up with this idea, which may be 180 degrees off in left field, but here goes anyway....the crush ring section of this washer (raised area around the center I.D. on both sides of washer) is a solid chunk of material about 1/6" square on one side, then on the other, flip side of the washer, it's a much thinner, rolled lip edge, with a gap on it's bottom edge you can hang a finger nail in. Could it be that the heavier side should be installed towards the brake hose, as it will be dealing with the force and friction of wrenching the hose down tight....then the opposite thinner rolled lip edge would just have to compress in against the wheel cylinder).???? I do not know,..just swaggin it here...if it will seal either way, fantastic ! but anything I can do to avoid spillage of brake fluid, etc..that's the reason for being so needy and asking. I did find 3 pictures of this exact brake hose to wheel cylinder washer/gasket here in the past forum archives which were submitted by Dodgeb4ya member...in one of the pictures it shows a removed, used, washer laying on a flat surface,...you can tell it has been used because it is now cone shaped as it was tightened down and drawn into the backplate hole opening.....not for sure, but in the pic kinda looks to me like it was installed opposite to what I just described above,...so jury's still out for me on this one....

Going through the front brakes on this 1946 P15....thanks to the forum and some late night research I discovered the existence of the original 2 stage type copper brake hose crush washers....(previous brake work on this car had used conventional regular copper washers in place between the cylinder and the brake hoses, which did the important job of sealing the brake fluid but obviously didn't fill the back plate hole opening). The information I found here on the forum included a few pictures, and a note confirming that the washer is to be placed on the backside/outside of the brake backing plate and as the brake hose is tightened down, it will draw the larger O.D. area of the washer inward pulling the washer into a cone shape that also seals the hole in the brake back plate. I received these crush washers in the mail today,..and in looking at both sides of the raised center area of the washer, ( the lip area that crushes to seal the brake fluid ),..they are not the same,...one side is about twice as thick as the other and looks like a solid section of copper, the other side is thinner and has a small space/gap between the raised ring and the rest of the washer.....(pretty poor job of trying to describe this, but if you are familiar with these washers you'll know what I'm talking about) Question please: which side mates with the brake hose and which side mates with the wheel cylinder ? Thank you for your help. Steve

I was in the same spot, had my 2ea handles off the car, and had purchased 2ea additional handles off of ebay,...finally had success in separating the handles for future chroming....it's been a while since I did it, but here's how they are put together...... That round sleeve you see on the backside of the handle holds the shaft workings to the handle by means of a crimp in the side of the sleeve. This inward crimp mates into a slot/groove/indention on the handle...I spoke with one fella that said he would carefully grind out the crimp on the sleeve to remove it,..then he would just turn the sleeve 90 degrees and re-crimp it in place,....on my handles however, I found that if I just grabbed the sleeve itself with pliers and carefully begin working /rotating it from side to side, the crimp of the sleeve will slowly get pushed outward by the sideways movement, and the sleeve will then slide off the shaft, freeing up the handle assembly. There should also be a washer underneath the sleeve that looks sorta like a regular lock washer with a conical shape to it. Steve

I just purchased an in-line 1 3/4" radiator coolant filter that I believe should work on the top hose between the thermostat housing and the radiator inlet on this 218 flathead six engine. There's a few brands out there, but to my knowledge this is the only one that is small enough to insert between the radiator inlet and the thermostat housing, as the entire unit measures only 3 5/8 " wide and requires that 2" of hose be removed (cut out)..filter has removable cap for servicing.....if interested - pm me and I will share the info. I'm not connected or involved with these in any way, other than I had been trying to obtain one, but they were only available out of Australia and the shipping made them crazy high...however now there is a distributor here in Texas which brought the price way down....not trying to violate any forum rules, by advertising for anyone,...just wanting to share with folks that might have a need.. Steve

well the Lincoln brand 1/8 pipe thread grease zerk's wasn't the answer,....these Lincoln zerks fit tighter in the threaded hole bore than any I've tried,...these basically will only start and turn maybe a 1/4 turn by hand before they tighten up and stop...starting to think I just need to slowly run a 1/8-27 tap into the existing hole threads, in effort of trying to deepen my existing threads to accept the normal 1/8-27 zerks. While I did have the old original zerks out, I took my calipers and did some measure comparison between the old zerks and the new stuff I've been buying,...I measured at the 1st thread, inside the thread valley,..and the new 1/8-27 zerks are 7-8 thousands larger than the old zerks....even the old zerks did not thread all the way in, they left about 2ea of the 5ea total threads showing,....I wonder if whomever at the Plymouth plant, that installed the zerks on this P15, may have been on their first day on the job .. I sure do and did appreciate all the responses back with this,...nothing better than folks willing to try and help.. Steve

We don't have it as bad as the Houston Tx area, but the DFW metroplex area of Texas can hit ya with high humidity levels for extended periods of time and it can change at the drop of a hat. The following is something I wanted to share with members in regards to this - hopefully it might help someone out a bit. For about $10 here's what I've done to keep humidity off parts were wire wheeled down to bare metal in preparation for paint, then had to sit for days if not weeks due to rainy high humidity weather. Wallmart carries a line of plastic sealing bags called "magicbag", They are space saver type bags and they come in different sizes....(don't confuse this brand with the ziploc type bags they also carry,...I have had about 75% of the Ziploc bags come apart at the seal after only a single use, the magicbag's seem to be better made and don't do this),... I just purchased a box of 3ea magicbag's size 18" x 24" for $4.00,.....cast iron intake manifold fits right in it with room left over,....flywheel would fit with room to spare, etc...just an example , but they also have larger sizes that cost a bit more.... Wallmart also carries a line of cat litter called MiMi Kitty, it is made up entirely of Silica Gel Crystals, and you can get a 4 lb bag of it, for $4.99. I took some of my old plastic prescription bottles, removed the white plastic lid, then drilled the plastic lid with 4-6 holes to allow air flow, then cut a small circle out of a paper towel and insert the circle into the inside of the plastic cap you just drilled holes into. Now fill your bottle with the silica gel crystals and screw the cap onto the bottle, then re-seal your litter bag with tape so it stays freash and dry for future use Place your part and the bottle inside the plastic bag and seal the double seal of the bag,..then grab your vacuum and suck the air out of the one way valve on the bag. Your part is now vacuum sealed inside the bag which also contains a supply of desiccant.....be easy with the vacuum as it will pull the plastic in and onto the part very quickly - I have wondered about a sharp part edge ripping the plastic and defeating the purpose, so I've experimented a bit and pulled the bag down to where it was completely vacuum sealed against the part which had bolt heads and studs sticking out and it did not tear or rip the plastic.. again these magicbag's are much better made bags than the Ziploc brand. Hope this helps someone. Steve

Found some Lincoln brand 1/8 " pipe thread grease zerks at Oreilley's Auto Parts, they had to order them out of Oklahoma City which only takes 2 days, so they'll be here Saturday...sales counter said they were USA made, so we'll see,...I'll let folks know how this turns out. Thanks Steve

Thanks Merle and Onkeludo,.... What I have purchased that is producing this tight fit situation is all labeled as 1/8 - 27.....but again I bet for sure they are Chinese made....and as mentioned above that might be whats happening. I'll be the 1st to admit for sure - I have stood back sorta afraid of this. With only two rows of threads, I sure didn't want to mess the hole up. You get to where you can feel what a bolts doing when your wrenching it, there might be resistance - but if it's smooth and even, your ok, so I did my smallest 7/16 hand wrench and turn the zerk inwards a slight bit...and it didn't seem to start binding up,...but this situation is more delicate than most so I stopped, figured I better not proceed - until I learned more, so I backed it on out, all the threads looked fine,..and I thought don't experiment. Lean on the forum again about this and gain their insight and experience, rather than experimenting.. Thanks again for all your input. Steve

Thanks AS/KH and Don - I appreciate your help and sharing your experience with me,.. I did purchase these zerks off of ebay - so chances are they are Chinese made....I'll see if I can find some USA made,....and see if that's a fit.... I appreciate the option also to look at the 5/16th dimension as well, and I will do so,...the parts book does list this zerk as being 1/8 tapered thread, but still who's to say there isn't something else in there,...easy enough to prove or disprove as you stated - thanks Dave I believe there's enough room inside the hole to run a tap, so I would think running a 1/8 - 27 npt tap carefully through the threads might also fix this small issue, ( if the usa made zerk doesn't )...that would produce a bit of metal grit inside the hole - but it's right at the hole opening, and there are only 2 rows of female threads inside the zerk hole....so I guess it would be more accessible than most situations like this ( as far as trying to clean all the metal fragments out of the hole... ) I'm hoping USA made might fix this.... Before messaging the forum this morning, I did contact a zerk company that I found on the computer - thinking they might be able to help me with this, question being ( are all 1/8 tapered thread fittings supposed to be the same ? ) They said they had documentation that went back to 1949, and as I understood them - that was when the NPT classification came about, also from what I've read about the pipe thread fit, there's one style that is supposed to be an interference type fit, between the male and female threads - which could also explain why these new zerk threads also are fitting so tight into the old zerk hole... Last thing I wanna do is make a mountain out of a mole hill - I just don't wanna strip out my threads or damage things in any way - in respect to that - it helps more than you can know, when you guys with experience in this are good enough to share positive information with me. Thanks Steve

Don, have you replaced any zerks on your 48 P15 ? If so - what did you use, thanks...S.

Thinking I would replace the old grease zerks on the front spindle/upper control arm area of the 46 Plymouth. At 1st I thought all these original type zerks were bad because you couldn't see a check ball in the hole opening of the zerk - but now after messing with them a bit, I'm guessing that they were just made differently back then - In that they must have another internal way of holding the grease in once the grease gun is removed from the zerk. If this is true - it still would seem like a modern zerk would be better as it would keep all contaminants from entering the zerk and then being pumped on inside when you do add grease...... In respect to the above, I have ordered multiple packages of 1/8 - 27 grease zerks and the threads seem to be a bit different from these old original zerks. (They don't just thread into the hole like the old zerks do). My 46 Plymouth Parts Book lists the zerks as : 1/8 taper thread... Granted, I have been moving really slow on this to avoid experiencing one of those "poopie ca ca" moments....that said, when I start threading the modern 1/8 - 27 grease zerks into the hole by hand, the new ones will only go in about a single turn,...where the old zerks will screw in about 4 full turns and seat themselves nicely in the hole. These old zerks look to be made of stainless steel, and when I do a stare and compare of the threads to the new zerks,...they look to be a match (comparing the tips of the threads to each other). The new zerk threads do however seem to be more pronounced, (like the threads are cut and not rolled and they extend out to sharp points),...while the threads on the old zerks look more like rounded rolled type threads without the sharp points out on the tip of the threads. Figured I better reach out to my forum members before I just grab a 7/16 box end and try wrenching these new zerks in. All reply's welcome, I appreciate your time and help. Steve