<VV> "Improved" over stock

[Tony Underwood]

At 02:57 PM 9/17/2010, kaczmarek at charter.net wrote:

>You'd have to replace all the rubber in the suspension to make it 
>really roadworthy, Engine and Trans mounts of that age are NOT to be 
>trusted, Replace NOS U-Joints with greaseable ones,  Seperate the 
>transaxle and replace all seals in the engine and trans, The brake 
>hoses and lines are not to be trusted, the wheel cylinder boots are 
>shot and the pistons likely frozen, the rubber seals in the Brake 
>M/C are gone so replace or rebuild if the bore isn't too pitted,
>
>An awful lot of work to make it driveable.
>
> >
> > A car like this is worth its weight in gold to someone doing a 
> factory correct restoration.  A car that has, literally, every part 
> that left the factory, can be studied to see exactly how it is 
> supposed to be.  There's a 69 in a museum in Nevada that has 
> something like 60 miles on it.  I dare say it too would puke oil on 
> startup.  That is if it would actually start.  I don't think it's 
> been started in 40 years.




One never knows...


I recently had to replace the engine in my '60 4-door after almost 
200k (that I know of).  Well, 196K.   It broke a valve and cracked a 
piston... it happens.

The '66 engine I put in the car had come out of a wreck (that had 
been in storage since 1971, so I was told) and evidently hadn't been 
touched during its time in the car it came in nor since it came out, 
which I was told had 30,000 miles on it at the time it met its 
demise.   From the looks of the engine it has in fact never had a 
screw turned on it, likely the AC44FF plugs in it now are also 
original, pulled a couple and looked at them and they had some brown 
coating on them but otherwise looked not too bad, so for the helluvit 
I left them in the engine.  It has Delco points.  It evidently also 
has all its original gaskets and seals... tube seals are now 
beginning to leak enough for it to mark its spot if I park it 
somewhere, but it does NOT "puke oil" even now after having put 
another 21,000 miles on this engine since the swap... making its 
total about 51,000 now, so...  it's no longer in warranty.  The car 
shows 17,414 miles last time I put fuel in it.

(did Corvairs in '66 have a 50k warranty?)    ;)

I didn't even actually rebuild the carbs, took them apart and cleaned 
them but that was it.  Original gaskets still there.  Running 
fine.   But it does need tube seals now... but not bad enough that 
I'm dropping everything else and jumping right on it.

No other leaks, nor has the transmission in this car ever been off 
the differential, at least in the 26 years I've owned it and judging 
from what I saw underneath along the way, it's not been apart since 
March of '60.   Transmission does not leak, but the shift cable does, 
steady slight drip of ATF from the lowest bend in the cable as it 
exits the transmission, will require a bit of ATF every other month 
or so... not enough to prompt me to start crawling around underneath 
the car to replace that shift cable.


Conclusion:

That engine is doing remarkably well for sitting in a basement for 
all those years without even being turned the entire time.   And the 
leaks from the tube seals are much less than what I'd regard as 
puking.   The engine it replaced had held up pretty well along the 
way, only major maintenance it got in its time with me was the 
cylinder head replacements with 62-63 versions in '84 to rid it of 
the burned soft valves and dinky springs the '60 heads were known 
for.   It got viton tube seals which held up until it eventually 
broke a valve.  Its front main seal was starting to weep oil by then 
and the motor mount bracket stayed greasy.   It's in the barn now 
sitting on a crate.

I suppose my '60 4-door is now "improved over stock".  :)




tony..