Can this work be done without removing the instrument cluster? I think by "dash" my mechanic meant the middle of the instrument cluster, as you have pointed out.

I have looked at that photo illustration (which is not of a '54 panel, obviously), and wouldn't have known what that thing was hanging down there without the arrow you supplied.

Unfortunately I didn't have this advice for the mechanic when he pulled the panel, which is lost labor. But I might crawl around underneath to see what I can see. Good thing it's at the bottom of the cluster.

Thank you one and all.

Thanks to you, Owen_Dyneto.

This was what I was thinking of as a possibility. I don't know if the mechanic used a hand gun, but probably. He's pretty smart and old-school. But it's great to get confirmation about using grease, and a great explanation for why the 140 was originally specced. We used to have grease guns with 140 oil in them for farm equipment, but of course, it's unheard of now. You saved me from trying to locate such a gun. Thanks!

The mechanic insisted that he found the voltage regulator up under the dash. It sounded like it was near the instrument panel but not attached to it. I'm going to try crawling around under there myself. The shop manual, although it discussed the regulator, gives no hint where it is located as far as I could see.

As you say, somebody out there has probably got some information on the placement of the voltage regulator for the instrument panel. The book says this has a direct effect on the Fuel and Temp gauges, so the information might be very useful to those for whom those two gauges are inoperative.

Perhaps someone with experience can shed some light on those coil springs, as well. I'm thinking, just replace them. I have a new set of shocks donated by the previous owner ,which could be installed at that time too. They're JC Whitney specials, though, so what I have on there might be worth just keeping. But, then again, maybe the old shocks could be the reason for the tilted front end?

I will have some pics to go with this, including my trick shim for the accelerator linkage. Be ready to be unimpressed. But it works!

Haven't been on for a while. Been driving and tinkering.

Learned a couple of things:

1. Manual transmissions can leak. Mine was down on lube. Drained and re-lubed with some seal sweller/softener added. I'll see if it still leaks down the road. Seems to shift better into 2nd, without having to wait as long to avoid a "crunch." Maybe loosened up the synchronizers?

2. Front springs do not last forever. Left front has notably sagged lower then RF. No room even for a shim, because coils are so close together. Think I'll replace both.

3. Sure rides nicer after mechanic got lube chart to find ALL the zerks. This chart is in shop manual. I TOLD him I thought it said the U-joints should have 140 wt. gear oil. He greased them. I checked the chart again: even though they look like plain grease zerks, they are NOT supposed to be greased, but lubed with 140 wt. using a grease gun. I drove it a few miles with the grease in there, but I doubt it hurt anything. Going back tomorrow for correct lube.

4. The Mechanic got the instrument panel out. Lubed the speedo cable. He used STP which I think was OK, although manual calls for grease. He said the cable was burned in two places. It doesn't make any noise, but still pulses a little on the dial.

5. Temp and Fuel gauge still not working. Mechanic checked the circuit breaker to them behind the panel, and it had power. He thought it was the voltage regulato, which the manual says is part of the circuit for sending power to those gauges.

NOW THE QUESTION: Where the heck is the Voltage Regulator for the Instruments? Both the Temp and Fuel gauges can be affected if the regulator isn't working or isn't grounded, according to the shop manual. BUT the shop manual does not give any hint where it is. The mechanic said he thought it was under the middle of the dash.

Any thoughts?

Many Thanks.

Quote:

Because my own personal service life is not that long. (I know that wasn't addressed to me, but it does apply.)

Upon reading your earlier post:

Hardly anybody drives my car, but if they do, NOBODY drives it by themselves. I'm always there to coach. I think this should be the case for any old car owner unless or until the other person has miles and miles of experience under a variety of conditions.

EVERYBODY fastens their seatbelt when they're in my car. Including me.

Thanks. Not really interested in the Mexican bandits. I just thought you were using them and liking them. Must have misread your post. Most interested in what you have on there now and how they're working for you.

Despite being a Troglodyte, I do consider radials a possibility. I'd like to have the same look to the tires as what I have now, just because I, personally, really like the way they look. Some radials can give a very similar look, usually for $300 a pop or so.

customclipper

To address some of your comments and concerns:

Some harshness due to footprint and often more aggressive tread is almost inevitable with radial tires. These factors probably contribute to noise as well. I lived and drove during the time period when the switch from bias to radial tires was taking place, and trying to get radials to work for those older cars was a problem then, and probably still causes some troubles with our old cars. (Reports of dissatisfying radials are not uncommon.) Not many folks here seem to have experienced the "radial tuned" days, but I thought mentioning it might give some perspective on the issue for younger old-car owners.

If an "original driving experience" is not important to you, and only attempting to meet standards and characteristics of current cars will do, then by all means get whatever makes you comfortable. For me, considering bias ply tires has little to do with original looks or judging or trailer queens. 100 pt resto? You gotta be kidding. Some suspension components do deteriorate as you said, and working on those items is one thing i'm aiming for in my 5-pt restoration. Would original color paint get it up to 10-pt, I wonder...

Safety concerns have been addressed pretty thoroughly, I think. Driving habits and just getting used to how the tires feel and perform will make a big difference. Also, good 4-ply bias tire will take a lot of punishment. Believe me--personal experience--two trips of over 200 miles at highway speeds on my current bias ply tires... built in the '70s. Not recommended, but doable. The tires held up better than the driver, but are just too old to continue this kind of use. (Me too, probably.) I'm just driving around town until I get something new.

I don't believe radial v bias has been or ever will be "hashed out." There are other factors involved, as can be noted in earlier posts by myself and others. These factors are not based only on originality or points. In fact, practically none of them are. Personal preference is here to stay.

The cars from '55-56 that had torsion bars are definitely a different animal, and these cars could possibly benefit from radials more than regular sprung cars--and give a similar driver experience as bias ply tires would. The suspensions are especially good at adapting to conditions--probably including types of tires--without communicating them unduly to the driver.

Yes, I have PS and PB on the car, with 3-spd overdrive. Probably special-ordered that way. Interesting and fun.

Tire companies just love it when they can convince people that cost should be no object if $100 a tire will buy significantly more safety. It doesn't. What it does is fatten company wallets and thin out ours. There's nothing wrong with blems. They can't be sold if there are structural issues. (Lucas seems to be a pretty reputable firm.) I don't think brown spots on the whitewalls are structural. Those tires are just one option out of several others that I found in the $170 range. They were of interest only because of the exceptionally low price-- half what I was ready to pay. (Did you notice they're Radials?) The difference between a set of $170 tires and $270 tires (also considered "cheap" by some) is around $400 last I checked. I plan to use the extra dough to get started on some of the suspension and floor work I want to do. There are always tradeoffs in this hobby, unless you're just made of money.

Did you want to share the brand of tire that has satisfied you?

P.S. I must have wrote this while you were posting the above. Sorry if I haven't covered all the issue.

P.P.S. Seat belts are important for safety than specific brand or type of tire any day. First thing I had installed after I got the car.

P.P.P.S Please see my signature section regarding the "trailer queen" issue.

cutomclipper55,

I checked and could not find your post on this thread. I'm not surprised there's another one. I tried to make this one as useful and educational (my own, included) as possible.

If you care to post the brand and size here, and where you got them, it would be most welcome.

"...they were supposed to be US made and had a different country or origin on the sticker they ride so well and hold air forever that I did not bother to complain about the mistake. Tires are not an area to skimp if you will be driving the car."

Agreed on the last line-- I just don't want to spend huge bucks for tires that have features and longevity I don't need or want.

I'm not as concerned about country of origin as long as they're good and look right. Heck, there are so many "foreign" tires sold on new cars and used as replacements on the roads today (not to mention the purportedly "made in USA" tires that are not made here at all). It's a crapshoot at best. I know there are those who have verified their sourcing and stick to their convictions about buying only American Made tires, and I respect that. I just don't always jump through hoops to purchase everything based on this--if that were even possible. When I'm given the choice between two similar items made here or abroad, I definitely do buy the "Made in USA" one-- and hope it actually was. And also hope it was built with parts sourced here, too.

Quote:

I will look for your quote to determine if your tire exprience was on this thread. It may well be, because I started the thread quite some time ago and gave it the Winter off... alot of cars are in storage then, and it didn't seem like a pressing concern 'til now.

Owen_Dyneto,
Yew got the tahr thang just raht... there's a story behind it from old-time Suthern NASCAR competition, but too long to go into here. (I'm not trying to offend by my probably lame attempts to write with an "accent", and I hope I do not. I come by the vernacular somewhat through experience, including some stereotypes, but also the real thing,)

Regarding the tires you are using... THANKS! Some testimonial about a vendor and the success you've had with various tires is very helpful...

"...they [radials] ride noisier and rougher and steer a bit harder than the bias ply..."

That's been my contention from the start. A lot of people don't know how good the old bias ply tires were back when, except for wear characteristics due to heat. They are super tough (the 4-ply ones--not the stupid belted crap with the 2-ply sidewalls). On older cars, you are using the tires that the suspensions were designed around. And yes, I believe many radials are much noisier on non-radial "tuned" suspensions. (Remember the "radial tuned" suspensions that came out in the '70s? There was a reason for these beyond selling radial tires, I think. Detroit really had to fiddle with different shocks and spring rates, etc, to accomodate the radials, both for handling and cuttting down on noise transference.

Radials are great tires, but bias, beyond being "period correct", also, IMO, perform as well or better in tandem with old-car suspensions and steering. Again, except for longevity and wear. I think that as long as you watch the alignment and rotate them frequently, you can get as many miles as needed in our less active cars. For daily drivers and cars used for very long trips at high speeds, I can definitely see why many would opt for the radials.

But a big part of the driving experience of an old car, to me, is obtained by using equipment similar to what they had on the original cars when they were sold way back when. The "feel" of the car gives constant feedback when driving, and the sometimes painful results are nevertheless quite enjoyable to me. A great deal of this "feel" comes, of course, from ride, steering, braking and handling, and is due, to a great extent, to the tires, (Nothing new there, but I think it bears repeating in this context.)

Safety concerns can be alleviated (somewhat) by using good period tires, and watching your speed, especially on corners and rough roads. Plenty of "bump steer" and "tracking" on my car, but it's all part of the experience.

(Of course I'm an excellent driver. I drive slow in the driveway.)

'Kinda tahrs you got on your cars, Owen_Dyneto?

(If you don't want to risk being accused of shilling for a tire company, PM me if you like. It seems everybody name-drops tires here though, and I think the more shared on the topic, the better. But that's just my preference-- probably not everybody's.)

Quote:

On the subject of "square" bias ply tires, with the ones I have on there now (from the '70s with like-new tread, but cracking sidewalls) I have had no problem with "squareness" that I can discern after they sat for 4 months during the last two winters. Given the obviously low mileage on the tires, I suspect they sat a lot more before I bought the car-- no problem with square tires that I could tell on the drive home after I picket it up. I think with GOOD bias ply tires (which may not even be made any more) the squaring business is not so much of an issue. 40+ year-old tires are of course, a big safety issue.

(Disclaimer: Others may be more sensitive to square-bias-ply-tire side effects, and experience conditions such as nausea and vomiting.)

As for size, I think slightly larger diameter is the way to go for my setup. 4.10:1 gearing, even with overdrive, can use the extra diameter to decrease RPM a bit at road speeds. I don't worry much about the speedometer--I don't think it's very accurate anyway.

My current L 78 size tires fill the wheel wells nicely, and the 3 1/2" whitewalls go all the way to the rims, and IMO compliment the body-color exposed rims and dog dish hubcaps-- no "beauty rings" needed!

The "blem" radials are tempting as far as cost, but who knows anything about Lucas "Sierra" tires? Maybe somebody. The other downside is the narrower whitewalls. (I was just kidding about used tires-- no way!)

I don't give a fig about judging, except maybe for "best driven to show" or "longest drive to show", if those are even categories. Mostly, I want the look and performance of the car to please me (a horrible, selfish attitude, I know) while keeping it essentially stock.

The idea of just getting a set of "drive-around" blackwall radials has occurred to me, too. They'd be fairly inexpensive and reliable. I doubt if I'll do it, though, because I know I'd eventually consider it a waste. It'll be cheaper and more satisfying to just go for one set of mid priced tires that have the right look and decent performance. I'll probably put on an average of about 400-500 miles/year tops. At that rate, I won't wear out any kind of decent rubber before I'm in no need of tires for anything, ever again.