Overdrive...is it heresy?

Is "over-drive" heresay...?<P>Nope...it is common sense ! First of all...50 mph is WAY too fast for a car of the early 1930's...given their absurdly low final drive ratios, long strokes, and "poured babbit" connecting rod bearings.<P>Do the math...at 50 mph...that long stroke engine is spinning FASTER than a modern car's does at 100....! And the modern car has superior bearings, and a much shorter stroke (thus much less "loadings" on the vital rotating parts).<P>Under the broad heading of "over drives" there are a number of ways to bring the r.p.m. of the old cars down to modern (meaning SURVIVABLE) levels. There are a number of ways to "re gear" old cars so as to enable them to cruise effortlessly at normal highway speeds. GO TO IT !<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

I knew I could count on Peter for an erudite opinion. The Cadillac has a 4.60:1 rearend which is standard for a 140" wheelbase 1932 Cadillac such as mine. The "high speed" rearend is a breath taking 4:31:1 rearend, not much better than what I have. The biggest stumbling block to installing an overdrive is that the driveshaft is enclosed in a torque tube. I discussed this with a friend who has installed seven O/D units in his Marmons, some of which have torque tubes. He recommended I use the same o/d company he uses. The price is extremely reasonable, $1,175. I remove the torque tube. They install the unit. And I reinstall the torque tube with the o/d and the job is done. The price of a high speed rearend starts at $2,500 and goes up from there. I look to low engine speed cruising starting this summer.

Eddie...good luck..you are going to LOVE it...!<P>PFH

Eddie<BR>I would go with new rear end gears, something on the order of 3.55:1. You acceleration would still be good and the rpms would be considerable lower. As rare as 32 Caddys are it could prove difficult and expensive to convert back from overdrive if you ever wanted to do so. Changing the rear gears also maintains the original look, in case you ever want to show the car.

Eddie says, "...cruising speed of no more than 50 to 55 mph, ...can increase my cruising speed..." through the use of overdrive.<P>As you install your overdrive or higher-speed rear axle gears, you may want to consider what it would take to turn or stop that car from the 65 or 70 mph you'll be traveling. Primitive brakes and narrow tires with hard compounds do make for safe high speed driving. <P>As long as you're modifying the car for higher speed, suspension, steering, brakes and tires ought to be looked at as well.

Bill<BR>I have a friend who is doing a frame off on a 32 caddy right now. From looking at the suspension and brakes I would say that they are both capable of adequate control up to 80 or so, perhaps a bit more. He is going to change rear gearing just to get a more relaxed touring speed.

I agree with Terry - any of the high quality high performance "super luxury" cars from the early 1930's on (that we now call TRUE classics )....have excellent brake swept lining area ratios to weight. Yes, REPEATED extreme speed stops WILL get you brake "fade" that would not be incurred with a disc set-up, but I rather doubt it this fellow is going to enter his car in a "hare and hounds" type sports car race....!<P>As for suspension, assuming the shock absorbers are operational, there is certainly no problem in "handling" - remember the roads our classics were designed for....they HANDLE....<P>The above comments assume a classic is properly maintained. Obviously, a cosmetic restoration on a worn out chassis, with sloppy steering and badly set up brakes, is NOT relevant to the above comments...! <BR>( Sadly, many owners of COSMETICALLY restored classics have NO idea how spectacularly well these cars drive and handle, simply because the restorer correctly recognized most people couldn't care less...they just want a piece of rolling costume jewlery to take to a car show.....My own personal slogan is.."drive it or junk it"...my '38 Packard V-12 is no cream puff...but it has been maintained as a serviceable automobile. While, in my role as a Packard V-12 fan, I would have to say Cadillacs are good for nothing but boat anchors.......let's admit WHY we called the "best of the best" of the classic era's "super luxury cars"....CLASSICS.....it's because they WERE...and ARE....! Go to it...you will LOVE the vastly improved utility of an overdrive ( or "high speed rear end" ) TRUE classic.....! <P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs

Regarding the issue of safety: The 1932 Cadillac V8 and V12 are identical vehicles except for the engine, length of torque tube, the V12 has a brake booster and the V8 does not, also the"V" emblem is differant. The brakes are identical. The booster only means one need apply less pressure to get the same effect. Body style for body style o the V8 is several hundred pounds lighter than the comparable V12. I have set up the brakes and suspension properly. They are both superb...for the era. I don't expect to be going much faster than 60 mph. When I do so it will be in a very straight line and with little traffic to worry about. You see, I enjoy life and want to enjoy more of it. Nevertheless, with the O/D I expect I can cruise in the mid 60s with no strain on the engine and do so safely. <BR>By the way, my 1933 Packard 12 Convertible Sedan has a 4:06 to 1 rearend. That can cruise at 70 mph. <BR>I don't want to install a high speed rearend because they are considerably more expensive and I can convert back fairly easily if I desire.

Eddie...NO NO NO...dont do it..DONT drive your Packard Twelve at 70 mph....that 4:06 final drive ratio means your long stroke V-12 is thrashing around with MANY MANY times the "intertial loads" on its crank-shaft and rod bearings...as would a modern car at 100 mph..and the modern cars have much shorter strokes and "insert" connecting rod bearings.<P>The discussion I just entered the other day holds just as true for your Packard Twelve. I have a Packard Twelve ( later model than yours...'38...with the "insert" type connecting rod bearings )...and I re-geared it back in the mid 1960's...and have been enjoying extreme-speed crusing ever since.<P>Sure...the ORDINARY old cars of the 1930's had miserable brakes and marginal handling. ONE of the many reasons the vastly superior super-luxury / super powered cars we now call "classics"...are CALLED true classics..is their superior handling. Any of the big-engined TRUE classics of the 1930's....even the late 1920's...would benefit from re-gearing so as to bring their engine rpms at crusing speed down where their designers planned for. The only qualification is...you go back in time far enough..and you are going to face TWO wheel brakes...I would NOT want to try a panic stop from 80 mph in a TWO wheel brake car. I HAVE had to make hard stops in my Packard Twelve at extreme speeds. SURE you only get one or two high speed stops before "brake fade" sets in...after all..there is a REASON why high performance cars have disc brakes..!<P>Again....re-gear...save your classic's engine...make it more fun to drive..and you WILL drive it more....what could be more fun than sailing leisurely across country in a big-engined TRUE classic....!<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, Arizona

Eddie:<P>One word of caution on re-gearing: if you go too low numerically, your car may not overcome the wind loads in high gear. I speak from personal experience from my misspent youth playing with motorcycles. It's easy to convince yourself that lower is better and you can readily change the final drive ratio on a motorcycle. But you will find that you quickly reach the point where the wind drag grows faster than engine torque, and the car becomes so lifeless in high gear that it isn't usable.<P>And don't forget how hard it is to get an under-geared car started on a hill on a hot day with a full load of passengers.<P>Suggest you try to find someone with a similar car who has changed the final drive ratio before you do it. It may be a better idea just to drive a bit slower. Or go with the overdrive, at least you can turn it off if the ratio is too high.<P>Good luck<P>Bill S.

Buick...I think you are confused...we are not talking about the ORDINARY old cars of the 1930's in here....you are correct in that an ORDINARY old car would most certainly NOT have the raw power to handle a "high" (numerically lower) final drive ratio. But when we talk "classic"...at least between people who KNOW what we mean by REAL "classic"...we are talking only about a very special kind of car...the "super luxury" cars of the classic era. When we got togethe orginally to participate in THIS particular Club..our focus was on the most elegant, most powerful cars of the late 1920's thru 1942. These cars most certainly DO have the power to cruise comfortably in the extreme speed ranges. And they have the "support" systems..such as superior brakes and cooling systems, to "deliver" this mile after mile.<P>What many people do not understand...is that the typical NEW car buyer of the 1930's..especially the buyer of the biggest, most powerful, most luxurious cars, was NOT a "car buff" as we understand the term today. They were older people..many came to maturity at or before the dawn of the mechanized era...often had NO understanding of technology. It was considered a "status" thing if your car could start in high gear from a dead stop, and give sprightly performance in HIGH gear without shifting at very low speeds. Given the dismal condition of the highway system of those years, very low final drive ratios were the "norm". Of COURSE the engineers knew better, but there was nothing they could do about it. There was an attempt by Packard around 1931 to get new car owners to appreciate the merits of "high speed" final drive ratios..and it was a disaster ( they equipped a few cars with 3:31 ratios...and virtually EVERY one of them was returned to the factory by irate dealers and customers...!)<P>Unfortunately, greedy people who just wanted to sell old cars, have gotten into our Club and dramatically broadened the definition and use of the term "classic". I would certainly agree that some dinky little Standard Eight limo...with that silly 320 cu in motor, and a large "wetted" frontal area, wouldn't do well with a high speed final drive ratio. But my comments were not directed towards the medium price "ordinary" cars. Again...my comments were assuming we were talking about the big POWERFUL super luxury cars that are REAL "classics".<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

Peter:<P>Somehow, your posts make we want to puke.<P>I know that you think the REAL CLASSICS that you rever hardly follow the laws of physics. You must know that the '32 Cadillac under disucssion has a mere 115 horsepower flathead V-8 with specs similar to engines in dreadful (ughhhh!) mid-priced cars.<P>You must consider picking up a Peterbuilt, they have huge engines and cruise for hundreds of thousands of miles at high speed. I'll bet it will remind you of your FULL CLASSIC.<P>Bill S

Come on guys, LIGHTEN UP! I didn't invent those LOUSY, WORTHLESS mid-priced NON CLASSICS. Can't you TAKE A JOKE? (Where the heck's my Britney tape). <P>SURE it's got 115 HORSEPOWER, but that's CLASSIC HORSEPOWER! Much different from mid-priced MULEpower. (I know I left it here somewhere).<P>When we designed all those full CLASSICS, we made darn sure you could drive the bejabbers out of them ALL DAY! UP HILL! IN THE DESERT! (Oh, here it is. Now, where's that darn TV?)<P>Where was I? Oh, YES. CLASSICS. Wetted area, piston speed, LOUSY poured bearings, speed, CHEAP, STUPID, LOUSY, SCUM mid-priced cars. <BR>(OK, there's the TV, now where's my Lazy-boy). <P>Look I got to go now. We'll talk later. LAUGH IT UP!

Isn't it interesting that some sixty years after the last REAL true classic was manufactured, ( what a tribute to their superiority over the ordinary cars of their day....and to their designers/builders...that they STILL generate such jealousy and resentment....( and such childish antics as coming in here under counterfiet names..?<P>(the REAL) Peter Hartmann<BR> Big Springs, AZ

Buickplus :<P>You apparently are not familiar with the term "wetted area". The fellow who asked about overdrives does, as you point out, have the smallest-engined of the Cadillacs available that year. However, he has an open car. There is substantially less wind resistance than a closed body of the same era.<P>No doubt he would not get anywhere NEAR the performance of the larger-engined Cadillacs, but the fact remains he would get much better (and less engine-wearing) use out of his classic with an over-drive.<P>The Classic Car Club Of America, and the cars it came into being to protect and preserve, are not for everyone. Perhaps if you find discussions of the "best of the best" offensive to you, you should ask yourself if you are in the right chat-room. <P>My understanding is that there IS a Buick chat, where the people with the smaller-engined Buicks find others whose interests are similar. <P>My suggestion is that you would find this form of communication more worth-while, if you would contribute and share TECHNICAL information relating to CLASSIC cars, rather than dwell on personalities.<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ.<P>Personal note to other Classic Car Club members. It appears we have been "invaded" by some "sour grapes" people from the now defunct "ClassicCarChat". You should anticipate "grousing" and discomfort with our Club, its principles, and the cars our Club was to preserve, and, in particular, watch for COUNTERFIET names - these guys rarely have the courage to stand behind the issues they propose - instead, they think it is "cute" to "counter-fiet" legit. member's names.

I....................<P>don't................<P>even.................<P>have.................<P>an...................<P>opinion..............<P>Please don't hurt me!<P>You guys are mean!

Hey...Chuck...that's no fair...c'mon, man....you GOT to have an opinion....! <P>PFH

Ok, as long as you guys promise not to hurt me.<P>I think a mild overdrive ratio like .75 to .9 could not hurt anything. The power needed at highway speed is a fraction of the engines actual capability. But finding any type of overdrive that's available for any kind of reasonable money is going to be hard to find.<P>Remember the old two speed rearends, what a great idea. Too bad they still aren't produced today. I love those old Halibrand rears too with the externally changeable spur gears, another great idea that should be revived.<P>If you didn't mind the hassle and cost of a Halibrand swap you could get the best of both worlds, just change out the spur gears when you intend to hit the highway. It all depends how original you want to keep it. If it was mine, I would keep her as is and drive a little slower. <P>You get to see more of the world that way.<P>And you know the view of the world through an antique windscreen should be savoured not rushed through.<P>Please don't hit me.

I think that if I were in Ed's place I would have the overdrive unit installed. The convertible sendan that Ed has when the top is up should have the same wetted area as a closed car. It seems that Buick 90 series from 1931 to 1942 are considered Classics. I have seen some custom bodied Buick 90's that would knock your socks off. Peter your idea of what a true Classic is ( PARDON THE PUN) is way out in left field. John Shireman Jersey Shore Pa. owner 53 Packard

I have a 1932 v-8 256 5 passenger phaeton and it has a 4.6 rear end. The car has plenty of stump pulling power with this low rear end that would be great for the<BR>road conditions of the 1930's. I am going to change the rear ratio, not to rip up and down the road but to lower the engine speed during normal driving. I think changing the ring gear will do alot less harm than mounting a overdrive unit under the car. When someone gets the car in the future it will be unaltered to anyone looking under the car. Jeff

Hey guys. I drive a low class car ( the only comparison to a Classic is that it has an internal combustion engine. My 1930 Pontiac has a 4.3 to 1 rear end and has 60 puny advertised HP (28BHP). I can cruise all day at 2743 rpm 55 MPH and have driven for half ad at a steady 3047 rpm 60 MPH. I have a speeding ticket for 70 MPH 3555 rpm. I have been doing this since 1959 and have only overhauled the engine once. ( over all 3 valve grinds in 470,000 miles). So I think some of the Classic drivers are just shy on the loud pedal. I'm sure lots of them could be driven quite abit faster than they are. You can bet you boots I shall eternally regret not buying a 7 pass 34 Packhard when I had the chance.

Harter Peetman et al:<P>This forum may have been invaded by non-classicists, but you must admit that at least it has become a bit more lively. You could hardly get through the cobwebs on the posts before.<P>And just for the record, I am a dues paying member of the CCCA and have been for around 25 years. The only Full Classic I have owned was a Buick 90 that I traded a few years back for a vastly superior non-classic, a '37 LaSalle convertible coupe. <P>Why stay in the club? That's a very good question.....

Buicksplus~<P>I too have a 37 LaSalle Convertible. I find it remarkable to park it next to my 34 Packard and consider the huge differences in styling, manufacturing technology (wood vs. steel body framing), etc., in only three years. Compare a Ford Taurus of fifteen years ago to today's and they more or less look identical. The industry was going through big changes at the time. <P>PS this other classic stuff is all rubbish, the rantings of an old fool. Don't puke on your computer, the keys get sticky.

Mr Hartmann<P>In order to support your singular agenda, you tend to throw around technical terms and concepts with little regard to their true meaning or application. <P>I think an example is your use of the phrase 'wetted area'. Simply put, wetted area is the surface area of an object in contact with the airstream. The phrase is generally, almost exclusively, used in a discussion of aerodynamics as related to aircraft. For example, the wetted area of a wing is slightly greater than the surface area in planform, because the surface of the wing is curved and the air goes a further distance over it. Modern vehicles concern themselves with the concept, but with 'barn doors' of the thirties it is largely irrelevant due to the then disinterest and lack of study in efficiently penetrating the air . <P>You somehow bring wetted area into a discussion regarding the aerodynamics of a thirties touring car, claiming that an open car has 'substantially less wind resistance than a closed car'. I'd like to see your data, or even hear a detailed discussion leading to this conclusion. <P>You may be confusing the concept of drag with wetted area. A sedan or 'closed car' with the windows rolled up probably has a lot less drag than a similar model open car. You made the original assertion, prove me wrong.

I am not an expert in aerodynamics all I can offer to this thread is some personal experience. My previous collector car, recently sold, was a 1928 Studebaker President close coupled sedan with 131 inch wheel base, in line 8 engine, 115 horsepower. It had a real low geared rear end. Prior to putting an overdrive in the car it felt and sounded like it was working to hard going over 50. After, installing the overdrive I did drive the car in September 1997 on a trip of 3,000 miles through 5 states, at one point I crossed the Salt Flates of Utah doing 70mph. This trip was a camping trip that included the whole family and all of our gear on or in the car, no trailer or modern chase car. The only other car on this trip was a 1928 Studebaker President Roadster with a high speed rear end pulling a trailer. This trip was written up in a couple car club magazines. I loved that overdrive, the only down fall was the car looked original until you looked under it and there was that modern transmission/overdrive unit. Hated that part. <BR>I have sense replaced the 1928 President with a 1929 Studebaker President Brougham. I have found a set of high speed ring and pinnion gears. The stock rear end is real low (4.7 to 1) and top speed is around 52mph. My brother has a 1929 Studebaker President 7 passenger touring, his car and mine both have the same 135 inch wheel base, with 336 staight 8 and 115 horsepower. His car is much quiter than mine at 55-60, because his car came with a factory high speed rear end (3.3 to 1). <BR>Having driven both my brother's touring and my brougham it is a toss up which has more wind drag. With the touring top up (the only way my brother will drive his car) his has more wind drag. That touring top on a long wheel base car like his is a big sail catching a lot of air when you are going along at highway speed. It reminds me of the space shuttle coming in for a landing with all those parachutes deployed. His wife and kids won't ride in the back of the touring, they get in my brougham to get out of the wind!<BR>One other point, my brother and I have driven our cars over the Sierra-Nevada mountains, and other road conditions, he has had no power problems with his factory high speed rear end. When I had my 1928 President with the overdrive I had to keep taking it in and out of overdrive to get over the mountains - he never had to down shift and kept riding my bumper beeping his horn to get me to go faster! <BR>I will not go with overdrive again, will stick with the high speed gears, looking forward to installing them in my Brougham now that I have them.

Mark:<P>Your trip sounds like so much fun! I have a '27 Buick and would like to make a trip like that some day. I don't think it will top 50, even if it had an overdrive, though.<P>I do wonder if you have the 3.3 ratio right. That is an enormous difference relative to 4.7, do you really mean 4.3? With the huge wheels on these cars, I doubt if they could carry a 3.3.<P>I concur with your comments on the looks of the overdrive, they really do stand out when you look under a car that has one. What ratio was your overdrive?

Hey..Buick Plus...I don't understand...you say you traded your Buick Series 90 for a La Salle...and you think the La Salle is a BETTER car..? <P>Buick Plus - would like to see your analysis...let me explain...although a confirmed Packard Twelve fanatic..I have for many years had a secret admiration for Buicks of the same era. Being a snob, naturally I much prefer the BIG Buicks...<P>(side note to John Shinerman...yeah, John...of course I agree with you about Buicks - no question that the 90 series Buicks were great cars, and certainly entitled to be called "classics"...and of course a Buick Century of the same era would blow my doors off ! ) (at least for a short run...remember, John...Buick was still using poured babbit rod bearings into the 1940's....and they could NOT handle SUSTAINED extreme speeds...)<P>Anyway...Buick Plus....my own personal opinion is that the 90 Series Buicks were pretty neat cars, and much "more car"...and better "performers" than the La Salle. <P>On the other side of that story, I have friends who have La Salles and love 'em.<P>Since you have owned BOTH...you are in a much better position then I to comment intelligently on this... What can you add to our knowledge about this...?<P>Pete Hartmann

For UnRegistered Bill P<P>Yes..I agree with 99 2/3 of what you said in your "post". But I am not sure you are correct that open and closed cars of that era have similar wind resistance/drag.<P>I can tell you that over around 80 mph...the "lift" on the fabric top on my '38 Packard V-12 is getting dramatic. And I do recall that most, if not all of the "speed trial" demonsrations of the manufacturers when these cars were new...were done with open cars. Of particular interest is an article you MAY be able to track down in an old SAE publication ...early 1930's....about the famous "race with a golf ball" that Packard publisized to introduce the then brand new Packard Twelve (that one year (1932) they called it the Twin Six..although you probably know the '32-39 Twelve was an entirely differenct concept then the "real" TWIN SIX 1914-1922).<P>Anyway, a supposedly "stock" new '32 Packard Twelve (sorry...Twin Six) was "raced against a golf ball. The golf ball was clocked at 118..if I recall...and the Packard..clocked at 124 mph.<P>Of course the car was "stock"....yeah..of course they lied...! Well...yes and no. See..what they did...was to put a VERY high speed (low numerically) gear ratio. Point is...they did this in an OPEN car. <P>I do agree with you...I am not sure I know what I am talking about when we get into the details of wind resistance. Yes, I do have some familiarity with aero terms, but that is a separate story probably of little interest to our fellow Packard buffs.<P>Bottom line - it appears we ALL agree that lowering engine rpms of these long stroke monsters enables us to get more use out of them, getting them out on the road more often without being a traffic hazard...so that more people can see em and ask questions about them. And THAT I think is spendid !<P>Pete Hartmann

See, Buicksplus, I can insult you AND kiss & make up IN THE SAME BREATH. <BR>Your car is JUNK, please tell me ALL about it.

For Reid:<P>Yeah...I also have seen examples of people literally driving the hell out of these older cars and getting away with it ( for a while ) without tossing a connecting rod thru the side of the crank-case.<P>But I think it is a dangerous and un-wise practice ( to drive stock geared pre-war cars over around 50 mph or over about 2,500 rpm). There is NO avoiding the fact that the poured babbit connecting rod bearing is far less tolerant of the stresses of high speeds. And there is NO avoiding the fact that the old long stroke motors put FAR greater stress on their connecting rods and crank-shafts, than a modern engine at the SAME rpm.<P>"puttering about" with the stock rear ends on isolated back roads is certainly fun, and obviously more "historically correct" than blasting over a super highway at modern speeds. I do both, and enjoy each experience for what it is. No question that the "old road" / historically accurate type driving is fun, giving you a "feel" of the times. BUT....as I noted above, getting these cars out on the road where people can see em (without either exposing the car to higher rpms than are wise) and/or without being a traffic hazard...is also neat. <P>Pete Hartmann

To Unregistered:<P>I will not repeat this suggestion. Please center your discussion on issues relevant to this Chat Room. This is not the place for a "personality-oriented". I am sure you will be welcome in here if you confine your comments to issues of interest to what we are here for. There are mechanisms available to assist you in finding other venues of expression, if you insist on your present "personality oriented" diatribe.<P>Pete Hartmann

Mr Hartmann<P>Lacking better information, I can only speculate on speed and drag on open versus closed cars. That's why I asked you to expand on your assertion. <P>I'm well aware of the golf ball stunt, it was more a publicity opportunity than a scientific test. An open car would have photographed better among other things. <P>In thinking about it, the closed car is heavier and that is not insignificant. All these cars had comparatively low power to weight ratios, and to drag around another two or three hundred pounds in the form of top and doors would have hurt their top speed. <P>However, the open car presents a lot more drag, similar to that of a modern pickup truck with the tailgate up and no tonneau cover. I think I read somewhere that, above some threshold figure, power requirement goes up with the square of speed due the aerodynamic drag. If that's indeed true, it means that to add another ten mph, you need an additional one hundred horsepower. <P>It would have been interesting to have taken that same twelve cylinder chassis and mounted on it Mr. MaCauley's custom sedan, with its low-slung roof. All else equal, I think it would have gone faster than the roadster.

Peter:<P>Comparing cars I have owned is like comparing my children. They are different but I love them all. I can't say that any of them are my favorites.<P>My Buick 90 is a very fine car that I spent nine years lovingly restoring. Lots of power and it ran beautifully. The looks (1939 model) were controversial, but it grew on me. And on tour, we never had trouble packing, we just took everything.<P>Comparing the Buick to the '37 LaSalle is like comparing a stretch limo to a Porsche. I will tell you that the LaSalle is more fun to drive and accelerates stronger than the Buick, mainly because it is a lighter car. I miss the Buick, but I have never, never regretted making the trade. I don't think many at this forum would regret making a similar one.

Here's a little more information regarding the overdrive unit I am contemplating installing in my 1932 Cadillac V8 All Weather Phaeton. The unit is a R10 Borg Warner. The reduction is approximately 30% or a reduction to 3:22 to 1 from 4:6 to 1. I remove the torque tube and after the overdrive unit is installed, I reinstall the torque tube cum overdrive unit. Cost...$1,175. I have two quotes for a high speed rearend viz.: $2,500 and $2,800 and I install it.<BR>Peter...I only hit 70 mph in my 1933 Packard 12 a couple of times and only for a few moments. But it was wonderful!

This has been a rather fun string of conversation. The hobby is still healthy for sure, if we can all talk about our cars like we are king of the dog pile. Now to the overdrive. I also have 2 cents to add. I am in process of restoring another one of those dreaded "P" cars. Fortunately for me, mine would have to be a 1935 Pierce-Arrow 1255. I would guess that many of us underscore this brand of "P" car. I just look at the accomplishments of speed demon, Ab Jenkins on the Salt Flats. He based his early cars on the Pierce-Arrow 12.(That is why I chose the P-A) I am sure he used wise means to slow down engine RPM as the P-A has plenty of HP in stock form.(I won't brag here) It is just not kind to drive this car with low gears at high engine speeds. My P-A has an open drive line making it easy for me to install a midship gear splitter. I can have good low end in the city and good top end on the open road. Gearing to change from about 4.7 to 3.5 with the spitter. Hope we can all enjoy our cars the way that is the best for each of us. Road Giants Forever..........Alan

Eddie:<P>I think the .7 overdrive might just be a bit too extreme, but you sure will be able to tell the difference! Seems to me that most factory overdrives on cars are in the .75 to .9 range. <P>It really depends on how much reserve power you have in the engine and the breadth of the torque curve. I think it will probably work OK. You might ask what options you have if the ratio turns out to be less than ideal. Is there another unit that can be bolted in place, or other gearsets installed?

To Peter<BR>Of course you would not be expected to know that the early Pontiacs had a "short stroke" engine. It was supposed to be the first commercially produced one. 3.31 x 3.88 inches. Of course by todays standards this is a laugh. I do though agree with you somewhat. Because I have driven my car for fourty-three years and so many miles I feel confortable doing it. I run 20 weight oil and of course watch all the guages and the mirrors and ahead of me as well. It's not the engine that I worry about and it's not the brakes it's the small footprint. 500x19 tires don't stick to the pavement all that well.<BR>The main thing I believe is that we should all drive our vehicles the way we are comfortable and that we should continue to share on these forums. I sure do wish that I had bought that Classic Packhard though.<BR>Happy Motoring to you all.

Buicksplus:<BR>Yes that trip was a blast, look forward to finding an excuse to do it again someday. The only problem I had on the whole trip was when I was in Logan, UT, the dual points went out of synch and I had to do a quick adjustment of the points, and then at the end of the trip I left from Sutherlin, OR in a pouring rain and after about 30 mins of driving the windshield wiper (only has one) quit working, drove to Redding, CA (over 200 miles) in the rain before I got out of it. <BR>Regarding the ratios, my memory is not what it once was. I am at that stage of life when I walk into a room and can't remember why. <BR>Anyway, I checked my current Studebaker it has a 4.8 to 1 ratio (Dam, I hate that), my replacement gears that I will be installing are 3.5 to 1, my previous Studebaker had 4.3 to 1 and in overdrive the ratio was 3.4 to 1. I used a mid '70's Volvo transmission with manual overdrive. I was not able to reach my brother to confirm his ratio, but I am pretty sure it is around 3.3 or 3.4 to 1, As I recall it was about the same as my '28 was when in overdrive. All 3 cars have 19 inch wire wheels.

Reid...you lucky devil..I had NO idea there were engines of that short a stroke that far back ! The earliest "production" American motor I am aware of, is the '38 thru '40 Cadillac V-16 ( a flat-head...a whole different "kettle of fish" from the earlier and less efficient OVERHEAD VALVE V-16.)<BR>At one time I owned Mae West's '38 Series 90 Imperial (formal sedan ). Was definitely a smoother motor than my '38 Packard Twelve, but the Packard is a "sports car" by comparison - superior power in all speed ranges, much better handling. Now...where was I..yes..the short stroke Pontiac....yeah...much less loadings on the rod bearings with the shorter stroke....BUT...you still have poured babbit connecting rod bearings..unless you have converted over to modern insert-type rod bearings.<P>PFH<BR>Pete Hartmann

Alan and Buickplus:<P>I would agree that in the ORDINARY old car of the 1930's a .7 over-drive might just be too "high" for those gutless motors to handle on anything but a slightly down-hill no wind day. But even the smaller of the BIG classic cars of that day would have enough power to over-come normal driving "loads" with as "wild" a final drive ratio as you could come up with thru commerical sources.<P>I agree the "over-drive" or "splitter" idea is the best - that way you still have the low ratio available for sprightly "around town" and "parade" driving.<P>The earlier over-drives and two-speed Columbia rear axles are nowhere NEAR tough enough to handle the torque out-put of the REALLY big motors of the "best of the best". True, there was one in the Aburn V-12, but the Aburn V-12 was only around 390 cu. in, and had NO WHERE near the brute torque of the larger engines in the highest priced "super luxury" cars. <P>Therefore, I had no choice - I HAD to go the "rear axle re-gear" route. I had a spare rear end, so I took it to a friend who had huge lathes used in well drilling equipment work. We took the heaviest gear set we could find ( a 3.23 ratio) which was out of a '59 - '60 Oldsmobile station wagon (by then the big American V-8's were producing as much torque as the "big stuff" from the 1930's) and we slit the "pumpkin" out, welding the "banjo" of the Olds into the area formally occupied by the "banjo" of the Packard. If you look at my rear axle today, you will see the correct huge brakes, spring perches, etc. of the largest series Packard rear axle - only give-away is the "pumpkin" (and, of course, I had to put an Olds U-joint on the rear of my drive shaft.<P>The Packard V-12 is typical of any of the REALLY big multi-cylinder motors of the classic era, in that it has more than sufficient brute power to give good performance with the 3.23 in place of the 4:41, and, of course, has enabled me to enjoy this car over so many years, at modern speeds. I do have a spare Olds "pumpkin" with a 3:08, but that is a bit "high" for normal city driving. Remember, with the larger diameter tires of the big classics, you can reduce the above numbers still further to get an over-all comparison to modern cars.<P>Yeah...tire foot-prints...As a side-note, I appreciate the guy with the Pontiac's problem...my '36 American La France V-12, with its 7:50 x 24" tires, has a MUCH smaller tire foot print than a heavy truck of today. It does have four wheel vacuum assisted brakes, so it will do ONE panic stop from the high speeds possible with ITS "high speed" rear axle before brake fade, but it certainly wont stop as fast as a modern vehicle with the superior traction of a wide-foot print radial.<P>Pete Hartmann

Overdirve?????? Low ratio diff changes?????<BR>WHY NOT a Columbia 2spd rear axle?????? It is my guess that the big powerful long stroke classics should be able to handle a rear axle ration in the area of 3.5 to 3.0 just fine assuming their large wheel diameter.<BR>First thing i would do is determine the safe Highest engine rpm that can be SUSTAINED. FRom that point determine the rear axle ratio needed for 70 -80 mph.

For - Unregistered Packard V-8<P>The Columbia rear ends were a brilliant idea, and an excellent solution to the problem of the stock excessively low gearing cars had before world war two. I understand their "high" ratio was around 3.3, which, with the large tire diamters of that day, would be just great for sustained extreme speed crusing.....<P> BUT<P>I am not aware of a "heavy duty" version..and the standard version is WAY too light to handle the torque of a big-engined classic. As I noted above, the largest motor I am aware of, that the Columbia two speed was used in, was the Aburn V-12, and that motor is substantially smaller and less powerful than any of the big-engined "super" classics such as the Cadillac V-16, Packard V-12, etc. <P>It should work just fine, assuming he could find one in working order, behind the Cadillac V-8 (and similar smaller engined classics, such as the Packard Standard and Super Eights). <P>Pete Hartmann

While being an admirer of the Full Classics but not owning one, this overdrive talk has been very interesting. I never knew how much those horific gear ratios back then affected the cruising speeds of the cars. Even more startling is the effect on the Super Classic multi cylinder cars. A fellow in this chatroom whom also posts in the Packard chatroom kind of changes his outlook in here. He allways says how cars like his Packard 12 were desinged for SUBSTAINED HIGH SPEED CRUISING. I guess thats not quite the story with factory stock gear ratios in these cars. Reading about Packards and other cars from thd Golden Erea rear end ratios of 5:09 to 1 where obtainable.

My two cents on the "Columbia" two speed rear end. I would suggest almost any other choice. My reason is from the concept of dealing with wheels, suspension and similar braking. If I had an Auburn or even a Lincoln V-12 auto, the logistics are much closer. Brakes and wheels are also more compatable; shocks, spring hangers, etc. could be made to fit. But to look at that as a possibility for use under a big Buick, P-A, Packard or any early 30's Cadillac, it is just more work than it would be worth. We all have our own opinions and that is mine. I would sooner spend valuable time restoring the car rather than re-engineering it. Now I say that tongue in cheek as I am looking at some alternatives for better gearing for my 1930 LaSalle Conv. Coupe. I don't want to mess with brakes, wire wheels, etc. But I don't really want to change the "around town" drive characteristics of the original gears. I have decided that I don't want to re-engineer the car but am willing to do the machine work to install a gear splitter in the torque tube. The new style gear splitters are real quiet unlike some of the older versions. Noise should be a consideration. I don't want to ride down the road in my newly restored P-A 1255 and hear the irritating whine of an overdrive. I could live with it in an old early 20's Dodge Bros. car as they have straight cut gears and have a whine all there own. As for the thought of wondering about ruining something, I guess that is up to all of us. I have decided that it is not an issue for me. If I were to be serious about a show winning car then no changes! But for a driver, I feel it is saving the car, and alittle gas also by using either an over-drive or different gears. I should point out that I also take a stand against the major altering of our limited supply of good, quality Classics, from whatever corner you come from. Controlled betterments may have a place, I am not sure that radical re-engineering is in our best interest. Study, see what you really want out of your car then match it up with your pocket book. All things have a cost. Lets have a good time as we are nearing that time of year when we should be driving......Alan

For John Shinerman:<P>John...you are taking what I have written out of context. By 1935, with the introduction of "precision" steel backed copper/lead alloy connecting rod "insert" bearings, those cars so equipped would SURVIVE extreme speed driving. I presume you are aware of the "promo" high speed run Packard did in late 1934 for some kind of Fair, a "high speed" run ( with an eight cyl. Packard...not a Twelve ). This proved that the cars would SURVIVE extreme speed driving, but it most certainly wasnt GOOD for them, and it is NOT comfortable. The "floating" or "effortlessZ" feel we get in our modern cars is due to a number of factors, as you know, including body isolation, improved engine mounts, but, in large measure to the "loafing" of the modern engine due to "high speed" final drive ratios.<P>I am sorry if I mislead you into the belief that the big-engined super-luxury cars of the late 20's to the early '40s were "fast" by today's standards. They were "fast" compared to the ordinary cars of their day but even this statement has to be taken with qualification - as the 1930's wore on, the cheaper cars got better and better, and ever closer in performance to the "best of the best". Of course a big engined car of 1930 would run circles around a Model "A" or other economy car. Of course a 1935 Packard V-12 or Pierce...etc. will run circles around a '35 Ford. But as the years wore on, the differences became less dramatic, especially as more and more ordinary cars featured the combination of "insert" type connecting rod bearings, and "higher" (and/or overdrive) final drive ratios.<P>Keep in mind that the "classic" era was a bench-mark in auto. tech. history, with dramatic improvements in auto technology gradually working their way down, and the "caste" system differentiating the cars of the very rich from the ordinary folk, breaking down as the ordinary car improved more rapidly than the big cars.<P>The irony is the big super luxury cars we call classics were made obsolete by technological improvements that, individually, do not look all that exciting. The introduction of the rubber-suspension-mount for motors quickly ended the need for super-multi cyliner motors in order to get smooth-ness, and with higher compression motors and higher octane fuels, a small motor could produce enough power to move an automible quite sprightly. We've already discussed how "insert" type rod bearings and shorter stroke motors (made possible, in part, due to the improved fuels and higher compression they made possible) gave high speed durability and performance even to the most inexpensive "average guy" auto.<P>So - while it is fun to celebrate the "arrogant excesses" of the super-luxury cars we call "classics", a cool dispasionate view of the entire situation, shows it is really a complex social and technological transition period.<P>Thanks for bringing up the inconsistancies in my discussions - please accept these inconsistancies as simply a reflection of the times and technology of that era.<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

The open vs. closed car speed question is actually simple - if both designed to the same standard, the closed car is faster. You see this today in the few instances both exist. There are two reasons, and frontal area, drag coefficient, wetted area, Cx all have nothing to do with it because these are all the same on a comparable pair. First the open car is typically heavier. At first this seems counterintuitive, because the fabric roof is light, but the bracing required to restore the car's rigidity adds weight. Even in body - on-frame construction, convertibles often had additional bracing. Second, the air stream doesn't "leave" the car cleanly with the roof down (the open car is faster roof up). This drag slows the car down.

seems to me that all of u high-rollers with your 'true classics' would have gotten together by now with Carrillo industries and had some connecting rods made to accept inserts and made of tuogher materials to withstand some higher engine RPM. Changeing the rods would not be a case of reeng'ring the car but rather just a matter of pulling the head(in most cases) and the Pan which should be ez enuf to do on many of the prewar cars.<P>I have a set of Carrillos in my 48 Indian and have vowed to never build another Indian engine with stock rods. The 2 rods from carrillo were 500 dollars. My guess is that a set of 8 or 12 for your prewar car engines would be about $1000 or less if several sets were made. With todays CNC and automated processes building a post war engine with updated components (especialy for the Hi-end engines) should already be a reality. My guess is that the babbit mains will accept more rpm punishment if the rods will hold up with inserts.

Mr Packard V8<P>You will note that most of the dismissal of babbitt bearing engines come from one corner. It is largely conversational, having little basis in engineering principles. <P>There have been instances where later production rods have been adapted to fit early engines without resorting to expensive custom pieces. I vaguely recall something about slant six rods being a close fit for certain early Packard engines. <P>It is all largely irrelevant, however. Those early engines ran very well for many years until insert bearings came about. There are quite a few benefits to shell bearings, ease of manufacture by semi-skilled labor, ease of repair by semi-skilled labor and lower cost are a few. <P>An engine with babbitt bearings, when rebuilt properly to the correct tolerances with the correct alloy by a skilled hand and maintained timely and well with modern oil will provide many, many miles of service under arduous conditions. In the larger picture, changeing the bearing style has little merit or purpose. <P>If one is so terrified of babbitt bearings on an originally well-engineered engine to the point of changeing the rods, they may not have a realistic view. <P>Do your homework.

RE "Insert" bearings <P>To " UnRegistered" BillP<P>YOU are telling ME to "do my homework". Is that supposed to be a constructive form of communication about technical subjects. May I suggest you be a little more friendly ?<P>Bill P. Let me explain why industry leaders developed the "insert' rod bearing. First of all, this is one of many examples of what the Packard company was all about - "leading the pack" in the advancement of automotive technology. Packard and Fedeeral Mogul worked together on this.. The subject of "insert" rod bearings is covered in SAT tech. pubs. - mine are still packed away from our big "move"..if the subject interests you, you will have to do your own research.<P>You are correct that "inserts" make it faster and easier to assemble a motor. You are partially correct if you believe the "poured babbit" bearing is "adequate". Assuming low rpm low stress driving, they work fine during the short service life of the average car of that era. Trouble was, the buyers of the biggest, most powerful, and fastest cars wanted something "more". To summarize, poured babbit bearings simply cannot transfer heat and shock-loads anywhere NEAR as well as the "insert" type...THAT is why "inserts" were developed. It is that simple. The COST of manufacture of the "insert", what with the additional tooling and machining, is actually HIGHER than the old style (and again, INFERIOR method of pouring babbit).<P>The background - Packard engineers worked feverishly to solve the problem of "burned out rod bearings" - notice the introduction of oil coolers and "finned" connecting rods in the early thirties. This did REDUCE the problem of rod bearing failure from sustained high speed use, but did not eliminate it. <P>Unfortunately, you are not the only one who is unclear about the vastly superior durability of the "insert" rod bearing compared to "poured babbit" when the motor is subject to high speed use. Even today we hear of "restorers" who are either too lazy or too cheap to find comporable modern "inserts" that can be fitted to older cars, and just go the "cheapie - poured babbit" route. The average service life of an engine with poured babbit bearings in modern service is about 900 miles before rod bearing "pound out".<P>In one SAE ( Socieity Of Automotive Engineers) publication I have a copy of, American La France (they made an incredible over-head cam V-12 of 750 cu. in. - I have one in my '36 ALF Fire engine) pointed out in its high speed high load testing, that as proud as it was of its many technological advances thru that date (mid 1930's) NOTHING was as important as the then-new concept of the "insert" rod bearing.<P>There are some exceptions - General Motors figured out that it could "get by" with poured babbit IF it made the rod in such a way that the babbit was very THIN, so that shock loads and heat transferred more easily to the rod itself. The Buick and Chevrolet used poured babbit right up to the early 1950's with considerable success, so long as one didnt get too carried away with extreme speed extreme load driving. As John Shinerman gleefully points out, the pre-war Buick Century would "blow the doors" off of just about ANYTHING. What John may not be aware of, is that when subject to SUSTAINED extreme speeds, rod bearing failure was a "given".<P>Bottom line - you are not giving Packard enough credit, nor to you apparently appreciate the importance, of its development of this incredible concept (the "insert" rod bearing) which had a major factor in the development of the modern high compression high speed internal combustion engine.<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

Mr Hartmann<P>Nope, not telling you to do your homework. Wasn't even talking to you. Also, never said anything derogatory about insert bearings. I think they're just fine, always have. <P>Who's this John Shinerman you keep talking about?

All the Pratt and Whitney radial engines I have seen had a silver overlay on their insert bearings, this was because silver has an infinite fatigue life and higher heat transfer rates. This added a factor of safety to the design with low added cost.<P>I wonder if there was any attempt to try a solid silver babbit bearing, besides the obvious high cost it would be interesting to see if the "pound out" problem would disappear with this type of bearing material as the compression strength of silver is quite high compared to lead, zinc, antimony etc. Perhaps even a high percentage of silver would be sufficient?<P>I may be completely wrong, if so please disregard my opinion.

For what it's worth, I drove my '39 Buick and a '40 Chevy coast to coast and back with poured babbit rods and no problems. The Chevy was a particularly bad design, with the dippers and cast iron pistons. I didn't baby the cars but I generally kept them under 60 mph most of the time.<P>We all know the insert bearing was vastly superior solution, just like carbide valve seats, fuel injection, the electric wiper and a myriad of developments that may or may not be in our collector cars. I know I have always been a bit reluctant to re-engineer my old cars so I can drive them 70 MPH or accumulate 20K trouble free miles per year. These are, after all, old cars, and my goal has been preservation, not modification. But that's another story.<P>BTW, seems to me that the first production engine to use precision insert bearings was the 32 Ford V-8, a particularly lowly non-classic. A rather fast one at that. Anyone know otherwise?

Jordans had insert main bearings as far back as 1925. They felt that babitt bearings were good enough for the rods. A Jordan was reputed to have had 450,000 miles on the original engine in 1945. Jordans were also advertised to be quite capable of running 90+ mph with these babitted rods in 1929

Next Friday I'll drive my 1932 Cadillac V8 with its 4:60 to 1 rearend from Naples, Florida to Sarasota, Florida, a distance of 100 miles. I won't take the interstate and will probably cruise between 45 and 55 mph. There will be a lot of stop and go traffic and I'm sure I'll have a great time. But even at these modest speeds I'd like to have my engine running at fewer rpms.

Bill P; i suppose my post about the Carrillo rods was not clear in its meaning. I do not believe in changing the rods to accomodate inserts only but RATHER to obtain a STRONGER ROD while converting to inserts at the wsame time!!!<BR>Most engines built prior to the horse power revolution of 1955 had relatively weak rods... or at least the rods were the weakest part of the engine in view of turning high rpm. SO, my post about the rods was mainly to allow for some higher SUSTAINED rpm with safety. Replacement of rods in the flat head engines is probably one of the easiest methods to gain component strength.

Peter et al:<BR>I hope I didn't give the impression that I was against overdrive. On my car 1200 ft per min piston travel is 1894 rpm which is 40.6 mph. If any of you fine Classic Car guys know of an easily installed od unit for hotchkiss drive please let me know. I would love to have one. As far a babbet goes I think my good luck is because I use light oil #10 or after 150,000 miles #20 and I have set my oil pressure up to 20 pounds at an idle which gives me around 40 at highway speed. I had been told that you cannot use high pressure with babbet because it erodes. At 350,000 miles I had my pan off (1 collapsed piston). I removed all the bearing caps and plastiguaged all the bearings. They were still .0015 to .002 with no sign of erosion or damage.<BR>Happy Motoring to all you good "Old Car Nuts" or Old "Car Nuts" or Forum Readers

For Chuck...<P>Yeah....silver-plated rod bearing "inserts" not that unusual - you see em occasionaly in high powered military piston engined aircraft.<P>Interestingly, Packard offered it as an option - as a alternative to the copper-lead insert . I recall seeing BOTH silver and aluminum plated "inserts" listed in one of the late '30s Parts Books for the V-12, but both apparently dropped as World War Two approached (not sure of time sequence..hopefully some guy who has a better collection of Packard Parts Books and / or more knowledge of Packard's Parts policies...can go into more detail on this for you )<P>I am not clear on (in part because I lack technical knowledge on this area) which is the "best" bearing material for "insert" type rod bearings. I do know that once "insert" type connecting rods appeared, that pretty well eliminated connected rod bearing failure that was so common previously. <P>Obviously, the original concept of "copper lead" is more than satisfactory, as we see it in common use today ...handling the most extreme service. But I am sure we agree that the shorter the stroke, the less inertial loading on the insert in the first place, so obviously that is a factor in the much greater durability under high-speed stress, of the modern engine.<P>It is interesting to note that while the connecting rods of the ordinary cars of the classic era were of varying ( read POOR )quality, Packard and American La France pioneered the chrome-moly forging in their V-12's, in their quest to come up with an engine that could handle sustained wide-open operation. For those of you who havn't seen the "rods" out of either of these fine engines, let me tell you...they are "jewels" compared to lesser cars. When the classic car movement was just getting started in the 1950's...those of us who had Packards built before '35 would "hunt" later Packard Twelve blocks in junk-yards..just to get the crank and rods out of the later engine. (the '35 and later "SUPER EIGHT" crank and rods were a "drop in" for the earlier motors - you had to do a little grinding to get the '35 and later V-12 crank in there in place of the shorter stroke earlier model)<P>Side note - dont confuse the "small" American-La France V-12 with the big and high quality "E" series over-head cam they built themselves....the "small" or "J" series American La France was nothing more than a production Lycoming AUTOMOTIVE V-12...a "flat-head"...same as used in the Aburn V-12 passenger car...only around 390 cu. in )<P><BR>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

Bill P :<P>In answer to your question.."John Shinerman" is a fellow who contributes to this chat under the name "53 Packard". He feels just as passionately about the later cars, as I feel about the earlier Packard products. We have a fine time batting tid-bits about Packards back and forth. I do not know him personally, but he seems like a fine fellow.<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

Mr Packard V8<P>I surmised that the reason you installed Carillo rods was not strictly to be able to use replaceable bearings, but to take advantage of their greater strength. <P>My thought was to attempt to respond to the thoughtless, blanket rejection of all things not 1938 V12 Packard. That rejection is couched as a celebration of heavy classic automobiles, but it is a mean-spirited rejection of nearly everything else automotive, nonetheless. It is stated many ways, not the least of which is this nonsense about babbitt bearings. Less knowledgeable, more gullible owners of these older vehicles can be swayed by these spiteful, inaccurate comments. <P>That does not serve the hobby or those who come after us. <P>Through the reverence owners (caretakers) have for their machinery, we explore the past. That exploration involves an understanding of and an appreciation for primitive, still-developing mechanisms. To dismiss or reject most of the varied forms of automobiles as unworthy is to reject the notion of progress. We stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. <P>Changing rods on your Indian is not really where I was directing my comments. If new rods keeps your bike on the road, that's great.

For Bill P and Buick Plus:<P>I am sorry you feel it necessary to use this forum for personal attacks and snide remarks. I am unclear how the other readers can benefit when you take such large deviations away from what this wonderufl new medium can do to help us exchange technical info.<P>I am also unclear where you get your ideas from, regarding "poured babbit" connecting rod bearings.<P>That early engines CAN survive with poured babbit is not at issue here. The issue is, what can TODAY's restorers do to better enjoy and preserve their cars. In discussing that issue I did introduce some tech. discussion about how "insert" bearings came to be.<P>I think it is most unfair and selfish of you guys to suggest there is ANY excuse for using "poured babbit" today. I have a personal suspicion, without knowing this for a fact, that SOME of the poured babbit used in the early years, was superior to what the average restorer has access to, and this may account for the fact that original poured babbit-bearing equipped cars sometimes CAN deliver long reliable service.<P>But the FACT is, disaster awaits the restorer who tries to "get by" with "poured babbit" connecting rod bearings if he subjects his car to any hard use at all. And I think it is safe to say that any realy driving on today's roads, would consitute 'hard' use.<P>I again caution anyone with a low geared long stroke motor, in particular, one built before the 1940's, to modify the connecting rods to take a "precision" type "insert" connecting rod bearing. There are so many "insert" type bearings available, there is bound to be one that will fit your particular application. The actual machining involved is simply a matter of boring and modifying the "big end" of the rod to take the outer shell of the "insert" (with the proper amount of "crush", of course).<P>Also please note the prior discussion on how much harder and faster the motors of the older cars "work" given their absurdly low final drive ratios - hence the discussion on "re-gearing" and/or overdrive.<P>That you resent the superiority of the "best of the best" is understandable. Parked next to a REAL classic of the classic era ( such as a Pierce Arrow V-12, Cadillac V-16, Packard Twelve, Dusenburg, etc, ) the ordinary old car of that period looks....well...like what it is ! And out on the open highway...well....!<P>But that IS the way things were. The FACT is, the cars reflected the much more "structured" caste system in effect in those times. Like it or not...this is history, and as automotive enthusiasts, may I suggest we not try to fabricate a personality clash today, out of the wreckage of a long-gone cultural / socio economic structure. <P>There is always SOMEONE out there with a bigger, longer, faster, prettier, more powerful...whatever. So WHAT ! (compared to that beautiful J-12 Hisso in the Nethercutt Collection, my Packard Twelve looks like garbage !....)<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

so far, noone has esablished any good "rule-of-thumb" SUSTAINED rpm range for the prewar engines. I will give an APPROXIMATE range of 2500-3200 SUSTAINED rpm. That range will probably cover 98% of all passenger car engines manufatured prior to 1955 regardless of manufacturer or quality of car. I'll even back that 3200 down 2800 if anyone wants to argue. N0TE that the 2500-3200 IS FOR S U S T A I N E D rpm.

Mr. Hartmann<P>This is a tempest in a teapot.<P>"...personal attacks and snide remarks....".<BR>Believe me, sir, I restrain myself. It is a recommendation of the hosts here. <P>To claim that babbitt bearings are an impending disaster is to deny many years of racing prior to the development of shell bearings. In addition, there were many instances of factory-sponsored endurance runs either at Indianapolis or private tracks using standard production automobiles running many hours at high speed. This information is available to the student doing his homework. <P>There is no long-lost magic formula for bearing babbitt. There are companies today offering for sale babbitt alloys for use in many applications. Correct choice of alloy and skillful installation will restore an engine properly and correctly. Butchery as you advise is unnecessary. <P>Show in what manner I have expressed resentment of any automobile. This is a recurrent theme of yours and has no basis. <BR>By the way, Augie and Fred spelled their last name Duesenberg. I know this because I appreciate who they were and what they did.<P>There is no personality clash here, you simply need to rethink your claims.

This topic has certainly been beaten to death, just like the babbitt in my bearings.<P>I am a big fan of insert bearings, and when I restored a '27 Buick Master years ago, I considered converting the rods and mains to inserts. Unfortunately, this is not a simple or reversible process and at the time we could not locate production inserts with the dimensions needed.<P>If I had a Model A where insert kits are readily available and most have good experience with them, I would probably use them. But I certainly don't regret staying original with that Buick, it is not capable of high speed touring anyway, and I am confident the babbitt will last for many years. If the bearings fail prematurely, perhaps when I rebuild, I will look at inserts once again.<P>I guess the only connection of all this to the original thread is what modifications should be make to our old cars to make them run better, safer, and longer? I lean towards fewer modifications even though I love to tour more than anything. I do not own a trailer and I have collected several distance driven awards just getting to tours and shows. <P>But I do avoid the freeways and try to drive my car as it would have been driven when it was built. As a result, I don't think a lot of modifications are necessary or desirable.

To Bill P; Peter has mispelled my last name. John Shireman is my correct handle given to me by my parents when I was born. I post under Packard 53 in this chatroom and in the Packard chatroom. I have a great love of the Classics and Packards. I might also add a love of anything connected to automobiles. I love to talk about Classic cars at the drop of a hat. I must sadly say that I dont own a Classic as defined by the CCCA. I am currently restoring a 1953 Packard, and also own a 1966 Chevy Chevelle

WOW! I can't believe you guys have 65 messages in this string. That's an all time new record. I'm on vacation this week and sending you this message from somewhere at sea, so it's tough to be moderator.<P>I'm really happy to have all of you participating, but don't you think it might be time to start a new string, or maybe lots of them?<P>Whatever you choose, keep on posting, and remember to be nice. This IS a hobby, and it's supposed to be fun.

Having done a few babbit bearing projects in the past and having good success with them all, after a few tries on some to refine my mold design. My biggest problem has been finding ingots of premixed babbit material to melt for the pour. I've always taken an ounce of this and an ounce of that according to old recipes from my 1945 machinist handbook to get my alloy. Is there a supplier of alloy babbits that has a selection of types to choose from? <P>It would be nice to just purchase the ingots and melt them to eliminate the mixing process and attendant skimming and excessive heating that seems to plague the do-it yourselfer. I don't do it very often but it would be nice to find a supplier or even a recipe that is more modern in it's alloy mix.<P>P.S. I have also had good luck using those DC powered home plating kits to put thin overlays (0.0005") of silver and cadmium, takes some time but really adds that professional touch to any rebabbiting job. Can be done after the finish machining if you leave room for the added thickness. Hides the machining marks too leaving a nice flat matte finish.

Bill P<P>You can pick up my babbit any time, it usually falls out on the road through the breather.<P>I collect it after each tour, melt it down and pour it right back into those demolished bearings!<P>See you on the road...Perhaps we'll be so lucky to tow that '38 Packard V-12 someday, what an honor.

Chuck-<BR>Do a Google search for babbitt bearings, engine babbitt, babbitt connecting rods, that sort of thing. You will get a lot of unwanted information about stationary powerplant bearings, etc. but amongst all that chaff are several very good resources. <P>There is a fellow up in Michigan, I think, who did a very throrough study on the original babbitting procedure used by FoMoCo on Model A's. This is all written up with period photos showing the old tools, dams, etc. Very interesting. He does not do work for hire, only did all this study to be able to work on his own car. <P>You also should find a company who supplies babbitt alloys in, I suppose, ingot or brick form. I remember a listing of perhaps twenty or so alloys with their constituent metals and percentages and the suggested use for each. Again, very useful information. <P>I tell you this and encourage your own search not because I don't have the URLs, but because it's all printed out and wrapped up in plastic on a shelf behind one of the cars in the barn. Why the blazes I did that I cannot tell you. Anyway, it's there until spring. If you strike out, let me know.

Babbit is NOT babbit is NOT babbit. There are many different formulas for babbit dependeing on the application. Modern high strength babbit used in old engines is an immense improvement in their durability. I have tried not to mention it on this forum because of the flack I will receive about the complete lack of redeeming value it has but,-my 1915 Ford T has 3:1 rear gears and a Warford transmission. It has been clocked at 81mph by the police. For 20 years it has had modern babbit in the rods and mains. So far it has been driven in excess of 20,000 miles, many of them at highway speeds (constant 60-65) and the babbit is still in there. There is absolutely no truth in the arguement that babbit will not stand up to high speeds in old engines; there are too many people around that can prove otherwise.

BTW, i forgot. I stand by my earlier post- on a car as rare and desirable as a Caddy 5 passenger all weather phaeton there is no way I would even consider overdrive. It would be one thing to do it to some old sedan but it is another to do it to something as rare as the Caddy. I would change the rear gearing, no matter what the cost.

Grimly flogging this moribund nag...<P>...and 'Big Bill' Rader ran a mostly stock, except for a three and a half to one rear gear, 1927 LaSalle roadster 951 miles at 95.2 mph; in 1927 at the GM Proving Grounds. <BR>Periodic stops were made for tires, oil, water and gas. <BR>The test stopped when a copper oil suction line cracked. Rather than risk engine damage, Rader brought the car in. Had the test been continued, Rader was completely confident that the car would have gone to 1500 miles or more, if needs be. His opinions regarding babbitt bearings versus insert bearings, if any, were not recorded.

Thanks Peter, I found many suppliers of babbitting materials. I also found this paper which has some interesting opinions on the future of bearing technology particularly aluminum bearings. Worth the read if any are interested.<BR> <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/carleyware/library/ar797.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://members.aol.com/carleyware/library/ar797.htm</A>

I will venture again to the idea of re-engineering our hobby cars. Maybe the Cadillac that started this thread wouldn't be that good of a candidate for an overdrive. I can agree with that. Other makes as in my 1935 P-A lend themselves much more to the idea of an overdrive. As mentioned earlier, I am exploring the notion of a Gear Splitter for that car. It has the open driveline. On to other things with regards to re-engineering, look at what some of our buddies are doing to the "Heavies" of the Brass Cars. You would think they were also meant to drive comfortably at 55 mph, start with an electric starter, and stop on a dime (with a little help from modified four wheel brakes). Yeah, I think we ought to be careful. The kind of careful that mixes preservation, enjoyment and safety all in the same bowl. As I mentioned before, the gear splitter in the P-A is very reversable whereas the Cadillac idea is not. Oh well, the hobby is ours, and so far we are the care-takers and the directers of the hobby into the future. Alan

In order to lay some concerns to rest, I have found that if I'm unhappy with the overdrive the torque tube can be restored to original condition and a new drive shaft is available. By the way approximately sixty 1932 Cadillac V8 All Weather Phaetons were produced. Mine is number 55. However there are no others in the Cadillac LaSalle Club and only one other in the CCCA...and its moulding in a garage undrivable and unrestored on the Pacific Coast.

Eddie:<P>If installing the overdrive makes you more comfortable with keeping this beauty on the road, then definitely go for it. Like you say, the process is reversible. And keeping our old cars out of museums and out operating for all to see, hear, smell and enjoy is important.<P>I might add that since you live in Florida, a very flat state at(or below!)sea level, I seriously doubt if you'll find the car undergeared. This might not be the case in the mountains at high altitude where I live, but if so, just leave it in direct drive, no harm done.<P>All the best and be gentle when you blow my doors off....

My 1936 Cord has the original factory final drive ratio of 3.01 : 1 The piston speed at 60 fpm is 1400. If you want to go fast in a '30s car, buy a Cord.

For UNregistered CORD,,,<P>Gawd....3 to one final drive...? I HATE you..you lucky devil...I had NO idea Cords were geared that high. Or is that a special ratio - and if so, what were the standard ratios....<P>Remind me never to "choose off" a guy with an 810...in my Packard Twelve...if I have to face that kind of ratio in ANY 810 I am liable to come across....!<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs AZ

Re: Cords. When looking for my latest Full Classic one of the automobiles on my shopping list was a 1937 Cord Supercharged Phaeton. I came within a whiskers width of buying one...until I learned it was really a 1936 Cord Phaeton with a substituted FC engine and supercharger. The Supercharged engines were only available in 1937. It turned out the Cord I was lusting over was a 1936.<BR>Cord's have a fourth gear which is an overdrive ratio of 0.64. This works out to be a 2:75:1 ratio for 1936 models and 3:01 to 1 ratio for 1937 models. The non-supercharged model was rated at 125 hp, but the true rating is 117 hp. My Cadillac is rated at 115 hp but weighs 1,000 lbs more. My ratio will be 3:22 to 1. By the way I live in "Pine Ridge" which is one of the highest places in my County...it's 8 feet above sea level. Yes, it's flat in Florida.

Eddie, 8 feet above sea level!!! Geez I would be wearing my rubber boots all the time!

I just bought a nice 810 Westchester Sedan a few months ago. You can see a picture of it on the CCCA home page. To my amazement, the thing flys. 70-75 mph is absolutely no problem. I'm sure it will go a lot faster, but it "feels right' about 72 mph!<P>When I first drove it, I was constantly checking my mirrors for fear that I was holding up "modern" traffic. It turned out that it was the least of my problems. It goes with the best of them. I'm sure the fuel milage is abysmal, but who cares?<P>Incidentally, it steers and stops pretty well too. It has very light steering and almost drives like a modern car.<P>I guess the moral is, despite some rather unusual engineering, Cord had a pretty good idea. If you can find one with the bugs pretty well worked out of it, they are a very nice car. Of course, the styling makes it all worth while, even if it is parked.

one other consideration with babbit vs. insert bearings. Babbit bearings were common when oil filters weren't. The thick, soft babbit metal could imbed crud in the oil without damage. Insert bearings don't like this. If you convert, I suggest an oil filter be added too.

In my home town of Williamsport Penna resides the AVCO plane engine plant. The former home of Lycoming Motors part of the Cord empire at one time. Over the years I have seen many fine vehicles powered by Lycoming engines. The local AACA club sponsers a show and awards a trophy for the best vehicle powered by a Lycoming engine. The thing that bugs me is no one has ever written any books that I know of about the history of Lycoming Motors. I am very interest in obtaining any information that I can. If anybody can help me in this respect please do so.

Packard53, ask and yee shall receive. <A HREF="http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Pictures.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Pictures.html</A> <BR>Mostly aircraft engine photos but lots of info on Lycoming stuff. Check out the XR 7755 radial, what a monster! Use the back button at the bottom to enter engine heaven. Don't forget to visit the Sulzer diesel page, world's largest diesel engine at 100 000 HP/101 RPM! You want to see bearing shells, they are using a crane to put these ones in! I recommend everyone visit if you love internal combustion.<BR> <p>[ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: 4 Jaw Chuck ]

Hey....4 Jaw Chuck !<P>Can't thank you enough for putting us on to that fantastic "site" ( photos, cross -sections of engines ).<P>Your supplying this fantastic info. is, I think, an example of how beneficial this wonderful new form of communication is - I for one am learning more, faster thru this "medium" than I could possibly learn on my own.<P>I couldn't help but notice the big 1930-era marine Lyc. V-12 had full-flow oil filtration (not the two cannisters at the left front of the crank-case).<P>I dont know when full-flow crank-case oil cooling and filtration (now "standard" on just about ANY "automotive style" motor you can buy anywhere in the world) first was commercially available. Obviously, they had it as "standard equipment" in 1930 - these look like the same Purolater full-flow oil filters on the American La France V-12 of the same era (my '36 is the standard 750 cu. in. over-head CAM avail. for "top of the line" fire engines, where sustained extreme speed was requiried (incidentally, Lycoming also "jumped in" with Packard, Federal Mogul, and American La France, to offer the "insert" type rod bearing early on. <P>One of the arguments in defense of poured babbit bearings, is that they can absorb "grit" and survive better than the modern "precision steel backed insert" type rod bearing. The problem with that argument, is that it is only valid in the case of cheaply made low speed low power "economy car" motors, typical of what was offered the lower classes up thru the 1930's. <P>But there are always people who have either a need and/or desire for "more". More power, more speed..more luxury. We have REAL classic cars (the super-powered-super luxury cars of the 1930's, because SOME people wanted more, and to get that "more", both full-flow oil filtration and cooling (which was already making its appearance in quality heavy-duty commercial motors) came first to the highest quality cars, then over the years, worked its way down to the ordinary car. <P>Again, the two big advantages of the "insert" type rod bearing, is its ability to transfer bearing surface heat FASTER into the connecting rod structure. This permitted faster bearing surface speeds. It ALSO permitted higher shock load transfer ) ( thus we could have larger rod bearing diameters, which in turn, permit higher power from the combustion process) AND better transfer <P>Today, I am not aware of ANY technical article anywhere, and/or engine manufacturer of "automotive style" motors, who would even consider going back to the cheaper and inferior method of just pouring babbit into a rod and machining it to fit a journal.<P>That it is still done by ignorant restorers, only shows the very human trait of the power of "belief systems". ( we humans have this absurd trait...we KNOW what we want to believe...and DAMN the facts...!)<P>Hopefully, more "chatters" will take your excellent "post" to heart, and follow your example by helping us learn more... by providing us with FACTUAL information, rather than some nonsence from some "back yard" machinist who WANTS so badly so say something, he simply dosnt CARE whether it is technically valid !<P>Thanks again !<P><BR>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, Arizona<P>( you mean there are OTHER cars besides a Packard Twelve..? Naaaaww........)

Your welcome, I think? I don't know if I was just insulted or praised?<P>Call me sentimental but I just love sharing, kind of makes me feel small when I used to think the 150 Ton lifts we used to make at Hydro were such a big deal. I wonder what that Sulzer engine block weighs?! I would like to see them rigging that puppy up!<P>Believe it or not but I found that website completely by mistake. I was looking for Prime rib steak recipes and I got Prime mover. Life is stranger than fiction Ha Ha! <p>[ 03-11-2002: Message edited by: 4 Jaw Chuck ]