------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important
Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/8LmulB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To send a message to this group, send an email to:
Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For list server instructions, go to
http://www.chrysler300club.com/yahoolist/inst.htm
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Chrysler300-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 5 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Wiper Blades
From: "icehouse20022001" <ksimons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
2. '69 300 convert
From: "Bob Jasinski" <rpjasin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
3. Re: Flanged bushing retention
From: "Warren R Anderson" <wranderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
4. Re: Flanged bushing retention
From: Ray Jones <hurst300@xxxxxxxxxxx>
5. 300 handling versus a certain 60s sports car?
From: "christopher beilby" <thelastbestgenius@xxxxxxxxxxx>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 15:42:21 -0000
From: "icehouse20022001" <ksimons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Wiper Blades
Does any one have a source or a part number for windshield wiper
replacement blades for a 60. I went to my local parts guy he ordered
two different styles with no luck. So I tried NAPA and the same
thing. Also looking for a dome light assemble for a 61. Lost the one
that came out of the car when the head liner was put it years ago.
Thanks
Keith
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 12:08:01 -0700
From: "Bob Jasinski" <rpjasin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: '69 300 convert
Dear list,
I got a call from a fellow that is looking to sell a 1969 300 convert.
The car is red with a white interior, has AC, power windows, automatic.
Odometer reads 58K. He says the interior is very nice, body and paint
very nice but oxidized. Top is shot. Sounds like an original California
car, has the black plates, was in storage for a very long time.
I have not seen the car, and do not know the person. I offered to put it
out to the list to help him out. He may bring it to the Ohlone College
MoPar meet tomorrow in Fremont Ca. tomorrow. If interested, please
contact him at 510-636-1470, Dave. Car is in Oakland CA.
Bob J
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 12:24:14 -0700
From: "Warren R Anderson" <wranderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Flanged bushing retention
>Here's a reply George Riehl sent to me, which I'll share with all:
>
> Fine to put my comments on the server. Can't really see spending $75.00
for
>a tool used once by the average person.
>
>Having watched the continuing discussion about the bushing, this is what
I
>have to say....in 45 some years I have never reamed the bushing. Just
knock
>the old one out, install the new bronze one with a peice of pipe. Never
had
>one turn in the block nor was ever too tight on the dist. drive shaft.
Chrysler is very specific about sizing this bushing. They state do not
ream.
May be worried about the bore staying straight or - - -.
The latest factory recognized problem with this bushing that we are aware
of
was addressed in a service bulletin dated November 26, 1993 (have it right
in front of me). The recommended procedure is to use the two tools we have
been discussing. Two parts are to be replaced to correct knocking noise at
rear of engine and driveability complaints. One is the drive shaft (which
is
new part number) and the bushing p/n 01737725 which is the old number.
Shaft
problem and NOT bushing problem? HMMM? No mention of bushing spinning etc.
just SHAFT wear. Maybe someone is aware of other distributor bushing
problems through the years with Chrysler engines. I personally have a lot
of
personal miles on Chrysler V8's with no problems.
Things can get carried forth in production for maybe no real good reason
other than it has always worked so why change it. This burnished bushing
technique IMHO is a carry back to an old machinist technique that got into
production at Chrysler many years ago and might really not be all that
important today. In engineering we used to call such things 'sacred cows'
(and, boy, did we have a herd).
We bought the tools to fix one vehicle exactly per factory bulletin. We do
not think they cost half of what the price is today and we will use it
again. The piloted installer tool design I think is a great idea and far
better than a piece of pipe in inexperienced hands. This is the tool that
also burnishes. BUT, $75 for one engine at the hobbiest level; the job
needs
to be sublet or find an acceptable alternative approach. BTW, I also have
engines running that I installed bushings in a long time ago without the
burnishing process or any other sizing technique and they are just fine,
thank you.
The one thing that the installer tool does is help line the bushing up
properly. The bugger must go in straight. After being in place, pushed in
straight, it's an interference fit so where can it go? Not up. Not down.
Around would take tremendous force. I had a shaft seize and break (non
lube
problem) but the bushing still didn't move.
I would be happy to make our tool available to the engine builder that
wants to do the job the factory way and will pay shipping costs. The tool
we
have has done one bushing, should be good for many more bushings and I do
not see it getting worn out or damaged carefully building club cars.
Old car people worry about tiny factory details a lot. This is one case
that
might be more important than say the color of inspection paint dabs for
instance. By now, I had hoped that someone in this group would have
rattled
out the exact historical reason for this procedure.
Warren Anderson
Sedona,AZ
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 15:15:42 -0500
From: Ray Jones <hurst300@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Flanged bushing retention
Hi Warren;
Excellant answer. Just for the novice, they didn't want the bushing reamed
because that removes metal to "size" the diameter of the bore. They wanted
the metal "mashed" into the block to fix it in place and maybe to size it
also.
In reflection, I remember other situations like this in tooooo many years
past. Or at least having to burnish bushings before reaming, like in
kingpins or suchlike.
Ray Jones
> From: "Warren R Anderson" <wranderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 12:24:14 -0700
> To: "Ray Jones" <hurst300@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "William Huff"
<whuff@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] Flanged bushing retention
>
>
>
>> Here's a reply George Riehl sent to me, which I'll share with all:
>>
>> Fine to put my comments on the server. Can't really see spending $75.00
> for
>> a tool used once by the average person.
>>
>> Having watched the continuing discussion about the bushing, this is
what I
>> have to say....in 45 some years I have never reamed the bushing. Just
knock
>> the old one out, install the new bronze one with a peice of pipe. Never
had
>> one turn in the block nor was ever too tight on the dist. drive shaft.
>
> Chrysler is very specific about sizing this bushing. They state do not
ream.
> May be worried about the bore staying straight or - - -.
>
> The latest factory recognized problem with this bushing that we are
aware of
> was addressed in a service bulletin dated November 26, 1993 (have it
right
> in front of me). The recommended procedure is to use the two tools we
have
> been discussing. Two parts are to be replaced to correct knocking noise
at
> rear of engine and driveability complaints. One is the drive shaft
(which is
> new part number) and the bushing p/n 01737725 which is the old number.
Shaft
> problem and NOT bushing problem? HMMM? No mention of bushing spinning
etc.
> just SHAFT wear. Maybe someone is aware of other distributor bushing
> problems through the years with Chrysler engines. I personally have a
lot of
> personal miles on Chrysler V8's with no problems.
>
> Things can get carried forth in production for maybe no real good reason
> other than it has always worked so why change it. This burnished bushing
> technique IMHO is a carry back to an old machinist technique that got
into
> production at Chrysler many years ago and might really not be all that
> important today. In engineering we used to call such things 'sacred
cows'
> (and, boy, did we have a herd).
>
> We bought the tools to fix one vehicle exactly per factory bulletin. We
do
> not think they cost half of what the price is today and we will use it
> again. The piloted installer tool design I think is a great idea and far
> better than a piece of pipe in inexperienced hands. This is the tool
that
> also burnishes. BUT, $75 for one engine at the hobbiest level; the job
needs
> to be sublet or find an acceptable alternative approach. BTW, I also
have
> engines running that I installed bushings in a long time ago without the
> burnishing process or any other sizing technique and they are just fine,
> thank you.
>
> The one thing that the installer tool does is help line the bushing up
> properly. The bugger must go in straight. After being in place, pushed
in
> straight, it's an interference fit so where can it go? Not up. Not down.
> Around would take tremendous force. I had a shaft seize and break (non
lube
> problem) but the bushing still didn't move.
>
> I would be happy to make our tool available to the engine builder that
> wants to do the job the factory way and will pay shipping costs. The
tool we
> have has done one bushing, should be good for many more bushings and I
do
> not see it getting worn out or damaged carefully building club cars.
>
> Old car people worry about tiny factory details a lot. This is one case
that
> might be more important than say the color of inspection paint dabs for
> instance. By now, I had hoped that someone in this group would have
rattled
> out the exact historical reason for this procedure.
>
> Warren Anderson
> Sedona,AZ
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 17:13:24 +1000
From: "christopher beilby" <thelastbestgenius@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: 300 handling versus a certain 60s sports car?
Great to see all the tech talk/stuff, especially traps for 'would be'
wedge
engine buillders re oil pump shafts.
But hey, isn't it spring coming into summer over there - where are the
shots
of good looking cars, maybe even some with good looking dames/babes !!??
And in 'that we were really lucky we chose to buy 300s' department ??!
Here is one for you - drove a 'maybe I would like to purchase one one day
car' - a good '64 vette convert. It was solid and nice up to about 60-70
mph, and then it above this it started to feel funny in the rear compared
to
a now feeling stiffer front. Then it occurred to me, my first car, a 1930
Ford A with transverse springs for suspension. They bolted/clamped to the
chassis at their centre. Corvette use a transverse spring at the rear -
does
this in effect reduce the working width of the chassis at the rear to just
as wide as where spring clamps at centre ??!!
This explains why car I drove felt funnier at higher speed, the
chassis/suspension effectively like a Morgan three wheeler, wide at front,
only one point in centre at rear?? Where a Chrysler 300 comes in, is I
remember in '57 Chrysler made a big deal out of how they moved the
mounting
of the rear springs outward - sounds like Corvette/GM missed big time with
Corvette's rear independent suspension - or am I wrong ??!!
For it's day the 300C and subsequent was a handling standout, and based on
this Corvette, was in no way shamed by their '63 onwards independent rear,
not to mention the 327 I drove (albeit auto) was not super quick up into
the
revs compared to tuned 392.
Enough said, hope you are driving them over there, first day of winter
here,
autumn leaves falling in South Australia.
Aussie Christopher
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail is now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/signup.asp
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network
Archive Sitemap