I saw that Mal, but if you look at the Intro Section pages 16, 17, 18 there are plates demonstrating the front end parts of the 110, 120, 160-180. Those plates show medallion part numbers for all but the 110.

Doesn't the 'T' in front of the 1900 indicate 'Taxi' version only... or, does it mean the Taxi and the 1900 (110)?

To me, there's only two options:

#1, if you're going to have a show car that sees minimal road travel and sits in your garage as a piece of art to drool over, then sure, go back with the T/V.

#2, if you're going to actually USE the car and drive it regularly, then upgrade the brakes to something more dependable.

Another option would be
#3, you're so anal retentive that you can't see the forest for the trees and just like to live dangerously, while potentially putting innocent people in harm's way in the name of "restoration", then by all means use the T/V. I'd also recommend putting a small statue of Jesus on the dash, 'cause you're gonna need Him!

Gene, I assume it's damaged? They are adjustable for wear.
PS - do you have a MOOG part # for the ones you need?

Parts book shows the medallion as being for 110's

Attach file:

---

  (28.92 KB)

Hi,

Does anyone know who might have tie rod ends for a 733? I've checked a few of the usual suppliers but no luck.

Thanks
Gene

Hi,

NAPA used to have one that looked something like that which was used on tractors. I used one for a while on my '30 until I got one of the reproduction with the spin on inside.

Gene

Here is a photo of a '41 Special Coupe. Hard to tell, but it looks like it has an emblem.

Attach file:

---

  (43.12 KB)

Eric,

Although we've drifted a bit off-topic, you brought up the amount and expense of machining as a point against rebuilding the TreadleVac. I must admit that I didn't follow all the links that you provided, but I don't see where anyone out there in cyberspace has come forward with details to support that point. Therefore, I'm reasonably questioning how much machining is truly "required".

Yet, I fully agree with what you later wrote, that:

Quote:
People need to make a fully informed decision, but the problem is that people don't (yet) have all the facts that they're looking for.

Ken, great sleuthing! I do see one flaw - the 1956 Clipper's cathedral tail lamps as mentioned in SIA's article. The 56 Clipper's tailights were not the cathedral taillights that were mounted on 55-56 Packards. They were a separate design - I don't know who? But grafting them to the Studebaker bodies was a good move. This was obviously SIA's goof, not yours. Kudos to you for taking up the challenge and reporting back the respondents replies.

It's still all a moot point, the unit is useless and unsafe. It's cheaper and better to replace it with a modern brake unit, it's as simple as that.