1949 Chrysler Royal

Howdy everyone, don't know if any of you will remember the thread I
started (and got plenty of great information) about three years ago (i
guess)..

I have a 1949 Chrysler... thought it was going to be a piece of cake
to get it running again... after cranking a billion times, i pulled
the cylinder head to discover about half the valves stuck open. Also
found that #5 cylinder is galled to a fare-thee-well.

Fast-forward to present, Obama-oppressed day. I finally found a
rebuilt engine near Pensacola about 8 months ago.. the ol' boy saved
it from the scrap heap just barely, and had been holding onto it for
nearly 20 years.. The alternator and at least one other part had
labels to lead me to believe the engine was overhauled around '92 or
so.. No stuck valves or anything. Clean as a whistle looking into
the lifter galley and the spark plug holes.. The engine has twice the
number of stud holes for mounting the exhaust and intake compared with
the original C45 engine.. The manifolds on this engine are mounted
upside-down compared to the originals. Also, there was a Hoof
governor on there and an updraft carburetor. The exhaust manifold
has provisions for a second downpipe to be mounted... Both downpipes
can be mounted upward or downward. The serial number on the engine
is T249-5504C, which is supposedly a 251 from a truck and it is also
supposedly a Canadian engine. (C on the end)... dunno how it ended up
in panhandle FL..

I have a couple of questions, sorry if they were answered long ago,
but i would just like to re-ask..
Firstly, my 'Motor 1957' manual tells me to drain the transmission
before I remove it (since I have to remove the trans first to get the
engine out) and I would just like to know what type of modern
equivalent oil to re-fill the thing with once i get it back into the
car. I have the M6 transmission and the Fluid Drive as well. Do
they both use the same fluid?
Second, the manual tells me to remove the governor, interrruptor
switch, and shift solenoid before removing the transmission.. There
is a nice access hole in the floor for doing so, but I really really
don't want to pull those things out if I don't have to. As easily as
the front end of the car came off, I don't want to push my luck with
parts I might not be able to replace easily. Is it *absolutely*
necessary to take those things off? I can understand if it is a
clearance issue, but seems like there would be plenty of clearance.
Haven't looked super closely yet, however.

Depending on interest, I will post a link to some pictures of the
progress. The undercoating preserved 98% of the fasteners. All I
had to do was scrape with a screwdriver to clear the head of the bolt
or nut and it came right out. 4 fasteners did break, however, and
the captured nut at the top rear of the right front fender broke
loose, forcing me to dremel the nut off the stud to get the fender
off.

Ok, back again. Funny how the weather around here was hot, dry, and
unbearable for 2 weeks prior to my pulling the car out of storage...
now it's monsooning every afternoon.. hahah figures!

I looked again at the manifolds and the block, and I was wrong about
the block having more stud holes.. it is the manifolds that have the
extra holes to be mounted upside down or downside up, not the block.

One thing I did notice, and I hope it's just an optical contusion,
but .... the front of the "new" engine doesn't look like it has the
holes to bolt the front engine mount to the engine. I really hope
I'm wrong about that. The timing cover looks to be the part of the
engine that bolted to the vehicle from which the engine came instead
of having a front mount at all.. The cover has a nice flange and two
holes spaced about the same distance as the radiator support holes on
this '49..

I sure wish I had started working on this thing when I was still a
young un... what a mistake!

Thanks for reading and or responding.

Well, dunno if my other message posted, so here goes again.

Sorry if the message shows up and this one turns out to be redundant.

I looked again at the engine and the manifold is the part with the
extry holes to mount either way for updraft or downdraft.

The only problem I can see with the engine at the moment is that there
may not be enough bolt holes in the front of the block to hold the
front engine mount. If that is the case, I dunno what to do.
Hopefully, there is enough meat in the block to drill and tap the
needed holes..

The timing cover of the new engine looks like it was the part that sat
on the frame instead of having a separate bracket for the front engine
mount.

Well, I really hoped some 'old-timers' would have seen this by now..
ah well.

Hopefully you guys will... at least to read it.. lol

I will post my progress.

I think maybe the timing cover on the original engine has the
mountings for the front engine mount..
who knows, can only find out after i get the engine out of the car.


I'm sure I'm doing it wrong, but I'm having a great time! Nobody can
fault me for that... lol

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:03:42 -0700, Nza wrote:

>
> I have a couple of questions, sorry if they were answered long ago,
> but i would just like to re-ask..

If you still have a Supra, I can answer all your questions!

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:56:22 -0700, Nza wrote:

> Well, I really hoped some 'old-timers' would have seen this by now..
> ah well.

Try rec.autos.tech. The old timers seem to hang there.

On Jul 18, 12:53 am, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B > wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:03:42 -0700, Nza wrote:
>
> > I have a couple of questions, sorry if they were answered long ago,
> > but i would just like to re-ask..
>
> If you still have a Supra, I can answer all your questions!

I wish I did! I am now down to three celicas... trying to eventually
have zero celicas, but nobody wants them for a fair (to me) price..
ah well!


>Try rec.autos.tech. The old timers seem to hang there.

Thanks for the advice! I'll try it.

I finally got the engine out and the transmission the other day...
super hot and humid here, makes it tough.
If it was cold out, it would be a lot easier.. lol

On Jul 18, 1:00 am, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B > wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:56:22 -0700, Nza wrote:
> > Well, I really hoped some 'old-timers' would have seen this by now..
> > ah well.
>
> Try rec.autos.tech. The old timers seem to hang there.

got some response in alt.autos.dodge.trucks