Sunday go-to-meetin' car: 1968 Valiant 100
- Thread starter Dr.Jass
- Start date
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
As do I. If I can make something like that I will, mostly because I enjoy it. In this case, there are readily-available commercial tools for the job, the cheapest I found being around $28+shipping. I spent $1.26 on the nut had the rest lying around. The less I spend on low-use tools, the more I have for parts!
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
Monday night consisted mostly of cleaning. I once again scraped and picked hardened goo from the shifter parts, and ran them through the ultrasonic bath two more times. I brought them in the house to rinse in the sink since the solvent I use is water-soluble, finally resulting in useful parts. I then wire-brushed everything on the bench grinder, discovering that by 1976 or so, Hurst's tooling was getting a bit ragged. I ground off some minor stamping flaws, then set about hand-polishing the sliding parts of the various internals.
While I had the polish out, I cleaned up two of my Pistol Grip handles. One was the reproduction I had in the Dakota, and I was shocked at what poor condition it's in after only a few years. It never sat outside or anything--it was in the truck, then in my garage since. I first noticed it wasn't looking so great when I pulled it from the truck, but it's bad enough that it won't polish out. It's even rusty in one spot. If you're seeking longevity, the repro units may not be the best option. The other handle was worse yet, but it's an original '72-'74 B-body bench-seat unit I've had since around '91. It doesn't look much worse now than it did then, but it's been in several cars (I got it with a '77 Trans Am parts car). It's doubtful I'll use either one in the car, but at least they're noice and shoiny now. I have a Keisler TKO B-body handle I got in a batch purchase that I'm eyeballing for cut-and-weld duty on this one. There's also a distinct possibility I'll use a 3-speed handle with an adapter to fit the Hurst. I may not have a definitive solution until everything else is in the car.
Last night was shifter reassembly, freely lavishing all the contact/sliding areas with Permatex Ultra Slick assembly lube. The shims and lower cover got replaced with new Hurst parts, and as expected it's like a brand-new unit. I installed the Heli-Coil in the shifter mounting boss and got everything installed except the grease fitting, which darted off to parts unknown. I started digging through the linkage pile to see what I've got (I was loathe to rob any of my NOS parts for this project) and discovered I've got all three rods from an OD transmission. Booya. However, the swivels are stuck in place but good. Realistically, they could be installed as-is, but the shifter alignment would be a little off. Yes, it will work like that but ol' George designed an in-built alignment apparatus for a reason. They just plain work better when aligned correctly. Thus far, I've just shot them with some very good penetrating oil, but if I get no results from that I'll break out the beeswax... and if that fails, I'll cut 'em off. Swivels are cheap, linkage rods aren't.
While I had the polish out, I cleaned up two of my Pistol Grip handles. One was the reproduction I had in the Dakota, and I was shocked at what poor condition it's in after only a few years. It never sat outside or anything--it was in the truck, then in my garage since. I first noticed it wasn't looking so great when I pulled it from the truck, but it's bad enough that it won't polish out. It's even rusty in one spot. If you're seeking longevity, the repro units may not be the best option. The other handle was worse yet, but it's an original '72-'74 B-body bench-seat unit I've had since around '91. It doesn't look much worse now than it did then, but it's been in several cars (I got it with a '77 Trans Am parts car). It's doubtful I'll use either one in the car, but at least they're noice and shoiny now. I have a Keisler TKO B-body handle I got in a batch purchase that I'm eyeballing for cut-and-weld duty on this one. There's also a distinct possibility I'll use a 3-speed handle with an adapter to fit the Hurst. I may not have a definitive solution until everything else is in the car.
Last night was shifter reassembly, freely lavishing all the contact/sliding areas with Permatex Ultra Slick assembly lube. The shims and lower cover got replaced with new Hurst parts, and as expected it's like a brand-new unit. I installed the Heli-Coil in the shifter mounting boss and got everything installed except the grease fitting, which darted off to parts unknown. I started digging through the linkage pile to see what I've got (I was loathe to rob any of my NOS parts for this project) and discovered I've got all three rods from an OD transmission. Booya. However, the swivels are stuck in place but good. Realistically, they could be installed as-is, but the shifter alignment would be a little off. Yes, it will work like that but ol' George designed an in-built alignment apparatus for a reason. They just plain work better when aligned correctly. Thus far, I've just shot them with some very good penetrating oil, but if I get no results from that I'll break out the beeswax... and if that fails, I'll cut 'em off. Swivels are cheap, linkage rods aren't.
69.5CUDA
Blah Blah Blah
are those the same swivels that are "blocks" with a matching cage and bolt?...if so last time i had to un freeze a set of those..back when i did the rolled cuda, i slipped them into a vice put a lil heat on em and tapped em out with my brass hammer..the vice only was used kinda like a press table with everything floating
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
No, the Hurst swivels look like this:
They're 3/8"-24 thread, and when they're stuck, they're freakin' stuck. They're not as inexpensive as I'd thought, though, so I had to get creative when the beeswax wasn't working to my satisfaction (quickly enough... I had no patience last night). I'll post more later as to how I overcame the problem with glorious butchery.
They're 3/8"-24 thread, and when they're stuck, they're freakin' stuck. They're not as inexpensive as I'd thought, though, so I had to get creative when the beeswax wasn't working to my satisfaction (quickly enough... I had no patience last night). I'll post more later as to how I overcame the problem with glorious butchery.
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
When last we left our tale, the swivels were soaking in 1st Ayd Aero-Ayd (#79A) penetrant. Excellent stuff, but I wasn't willing to give it days to work. I'm just not a patient man when I'm on a roll.
I grabbed the 1-2 shift rod and a 1-1/16" wrench which fit exactly across the back and the end of the pin. I got some movement turning clockwise on the first try--not much, but encouraging enough to keep after it. I reversed direction and it moved back, then stopped dead. Once again moving clockwise, I got the same movement if not a little more... but I didn't want to tighten it, I wanted it off, so back to CCW I went. I took out the known slack and when it was hard to turn I gave it a little extra pressure. Now, I'm not a particularly strong fella, so imagine my surprise when the rod fucking snapped off clean right at the swivel. Damn it!
Not wanting a replay of that on the only other 1-2 rod I had lying around and was willing to use on this project, I grabbed the cutoff wheel. Side note: It was installed in the Foredom which made it so much nicer to use. Anyhow, I cut a notch in the back swivel along the centerline of the rod and gave 'er a whack with a chisel. I barely nicked the threads on the rod. The offending swivel easily threaded off the rod.
I took this approach because...
Somewhere on this board there's a warning about the crappy gold-irridite 4-speed linkage that, thankfully, seems to have disappeared from the market. I have three sets of that trash, one reverse rod of which I tried to make actually fit. I could not. It was there on the floor, staring at me. It became my sacrificial 3/8"-24 thread test bed. Yes, that's the sheared part of the 1-2 rod under the vise.
Fingers crossed that the plating might, just might, work like welding Teflon, I broke out the MIG and welded the notch I'd made to remove it. So far, so good.
Much to my surprise and delight, the newly-welded swivel threaded off the rod with minimal difficulty. Even more surprising? The weld actually re-formed some of the threads. Look at this photo, and keep in mind that I'd not yet run a tap through it. Perfect? No, but that's why I tapped it... and tapping was easy.
A quick and sloppy run past the bench grinder and it almost looks normal. Aesthetics are not high on the list for this project so little effort was made here.
I, uh, fixed four swivels in this manner, one more than I needed. Do I trust them? Well, that depends. I might question using them behind an 800HP big-block with a Ram Rod-shifted Hemi 4-speed, but for a 115HP slant six feeding an overdrive 833 in a 2,600lb Valiant I've no doubt they'll work. In fact, I'm practicing what I preach here.
Here's the 1-2 rod:
The 3-4 rod, with my makeshift alignment pin/drill bit in place above it:
And of course, our old friend reverse. I used the most-questionable of the four in this position, because if you're jamming hard into reverse you're an idiot. You can also see how mildly I dinged the threads during the cutting process, though I did run a die over all the rods to clean the threads.
I need to get some new clips and tension washers since the old hardware's lookin' pretty rough, but it was enough to make sure everything fits and functions as intended. Other than that minor hardware, it's ready to fill and install. The new speedometer pinion arrived and got installed tonight. That was the last item, although I do need to figure out a handle. I have options there, I just need to decide.
While still on the subject of shifter parts, here's your WTF Moment of the Day. This is an unmodified, factory-installed Inland 3-speed shifter handle from a 1972 Dart:
What you may (or may not) have noticed about that shifter handle piqued my curiosity. That led to further investigation into last night's carnage. Care to guess what I found?
I grabbed the 1-2 shift rod and a 1-1/16" wrench which fit exactly across the back and the end of the pin. I got some movement turning clockwise on the first try--not much, but encouraging enough to keep after it. I reversed direction and it moved back, then stopped dead. Once again moving clockwise, I got the same movement if not a little more... but I didn't want to tighten it, I wanted it off, so back to CCW I went. I took out the known slack and when it was hard to turn I gave it a little extra pressure. Now, I'm not a particularly strong fella, so imagine my surprise when the rod fucking snapped off clean right at the swivel. Damn it!
Not wanting a replay of that on the only other 1-2 rod I had lying around and was willing to use on this project, I grabbed the cutoff wheel. Side note: It was installed in the Foredom which made it so much nicer to use. Anyhow, I cut a notch in the back swivel along the centerline of the rod and gave 'er a whack with a chisel. I barely nicked the threads on the rod. The offending swivel easily threaded off the rod.
I took this approach because...
Well, no... they're really not. I'd looked when I came inside to feed the dog. They're better than $10/each by the time they get to your door. I have used ones, of course, but I'd need to replace whatever I used. I'm a cheap-ass, so I determined they aren't junk until I make them junk. A plan was hatched.
Somewhere on this board there's a warning about the crappy gold-irridite 4-speed linkage that, thankfully, seems to have disappeared from the market. I have three sets of that trash, one reverse rod of which I tried to make actually fit. I could not. It was there on the floor, staring at me. It became my sacrificial 3/8"-24 thread test bed. Yes, that's the sheared part of the 1-2 rod under the vise.
Fingers crossed that the plating might, just might, work like welding Teflon, I broke out the MIG and welded the notch I'd made to remove it. So far, so good.
Much to my surprise and delight, the newly-welded swivel threaded off the rod with minimal difficulty. Even more surprising? The weld actually re-formed some of the threads. Look at this photo, and keep in mind that I'd not yet run a tap through it. Perfect? No, but that's why I tapped it... and tapping was easy.
A quick and sloppy run past the bench grinder and it almost looks normal. Aesthetics are not high on the list for this project so little effort was made here.
I, uh, fixed four swivels in this manner, one more than I needed. Do I trust them? Well, that depends. I might question using them behind an 800HP big-block with a Ram Rod-shifted Hemi 4-speed, but for a 115HP slant six feeding an overdrive 833 in a 2,600lb Valiant I've no doubt they'll work. In fact, I'm practicing what I preach here.
Here's the 1-2 rod:
The 3-4 rod, with my makeshift alignment pin/drill bit in place above it:
And of course, our old friend reverse. I used the most-questionable of the four in this position, because if you're jamming hard into reverse you're an idiot. You can also see how mildly I dinged the threads during the cutting process, though I did run a die over all the rods to clean the threads.
I need to get some new clips and tension washers since the old hardware's lookin' pretty rough, but it was enough to make sure everything fits and functions as intended. Other than that minor hardware, it's ready to fill and install. The new speedometer pinion arrived and got installed tonight. That was the last item, although I do need to figure out a handle. I have options there, I just need to decide.
While still on the subject of shifter parts, here's your WTF Moment of the Day. This is an unmodified, factory-installed Inland 3-speed shifter handle from a 1972 Dart:
What you may (or may not) have noticed about that shifter handle piqued my curiosity. That led to further investigation into last night's carnage. Care to guess what I found?
69.5CUDA
Blah Blah Blah
wait is that reveres threaded..and it looks like acme threads
on the swivels i was thinking about the slide style on some of the vans? i guess
id bet good money on those welds holding just fine
i pray you paint or zinc that shifter so it doesnt rust all to hell..or soak it in oil?
on the swivels i was thinking about the slide style on some of the vans? i guess
id bet good money on those welds holding just fine
i pray you paint or zinc that shifter so it doesnt rust all to hell..or soak it in oil?
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
I'm not 100% sure about them being ACME, although at that scale I doubt it matters much. They thread into plastic anyhow. But yes, you're 100% right, the shifter knob on that car was LH thread. Seriously, what the hell was that all about?
Now I was curious, so I went back and looked at other parts I suspected to be of Inland (ITM) origin. The 1-2 rod that I snapped off? It was also LH threads, as was the 3-4 rod. It makes me wonder if I'd have snapped that rod had I kept trying to "tighten" it, since I didn't realize it was reverse thread until after I'd noticed the weird shifter handle.
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
I should probably clarify a bit here:
There are essentially three types of A-body shifter mechanisms: Hurst, Inland, and ITM (which stands for "Inland Tool & Manufacturing", hence the confusion). What most people envision when "Inland" is mentioned is the horrible reverse-trigger 4-speed shifters used from 1966 to early '68. After that disaster, Chrysler went back to Hurst for their 4-speed shifters and stuck with them for a long time--indeed, to the end of A833 production for the pickups in 1987. 3-speed manuals were always Inland shifters, with the same triangular, rubber-isolated 3-bolt handle pattern, but they did not have a reverse trigger. Inland, for the record, is/was a Chrysler division much like New Process.
Somewhere around '76-'77, Chrysler followed everyone else's lead and changed over to using ITM shifters on the 4-soeed F- and M-bodies. When I say "everyone else's lead" I'm not kidding--throughout the musclecar era, GM's and Ford's basic 4-speed shifter was the ITM unit. A Hurst shifter was always optional except on certain models (Hurst/Olds, for example). Yep--the other two manufacturers were buying their shifters from Chrysler. A quick eBay search of nearly any GM/Ford musclecar and "ITM shifter" will get results.
ITM is Inland, but the "ITM" design looks very similar to a Hurst. It has no visible physical reverse trigger. I believe it only used either an embedded (non-removable) shifter handle or the bayonet (push-in) retention. I've never seen one with a bolt-on handle, but I haven't really looked either. Mopar applications are always bayonet. The linkage is rubber-isolated at the shifter, and non-Mopars seem to use stamped "saddle" type swivels rather than Hurst's machined pins. Some, possibly all of the Mopar units also had "PUSH" written on the shift knob by the reverse position, as they required you to push down on the knob to engage the reverse gate. Most ITM shifters are clearly marked as such in huge letters stamped into the side of the shifter facing the driver.
Out of habit, I refer to all ITM shifters as "Inland" since that's technically what they are. I've never futzed with a reverse-trigger unit, nor would I bother. Their only place in the world is in high-dollar restorations. I don't feel the ITM version has any place in the world unless you somehow break/lose your Hurst on a road trip and need to get home.
Though they look very similar to a Hurst, even sharing the bolt pattern in later years, they don't work like a Hurst. They're mass-production junk of the highest order, with rubber isolation not only in the linkage and stick mount, but also isolating the selector arm from its pivot pin. There are no machined parts inside; everything is stamped. It's a "doesn't violate patents" variation on the function of a Hurst, replacing precision pins and bores with stamped tangs and notches.
The problem in the Mopar world is that the F/M-body ITM stuff is extremely hard to discern from Hurst if you don't have all the parts as an assembly. The swivels are machined pins. The mount looks identical to the Hurst unit, but is a bit thicker. That means the rods look a damned sight like Hurst units, but they don't interchange due to greater offsets. If you refer back to my build thread on the '69 Valiant and all the trouble I had with the shifter, I had a Hurst shifter, genuine Hurst rods and transmission levers, and severe bind in both the reverse rod and 1-2. I did not realize at the time that I had an ITM mount on the transmission. Everything bolted together perfectly, and I only realized the error when I pulled a complete, functioning factory A-body Hurst setup off a parts transmission and started comparing.
As far as LH threads go, I can't verify that all the ITM shifters used it on the rods. Maybe they were that afraid of George Hurst; I don't know. I just know that I have two shift rods in my garage, one for 1-2 and one for 3-4 (or OD) that have backward-ass threads on 'em... and one of 'em is broken (potentially) due to my inattention. Curiously, I have an extra reverse rod that's stripped, but that is/was definitely RH thread. I'm sure both sets of linkage came as sets on transmissions I've bought over the years.
Anyhow, I'm wondering if I couldn't overcome the both the broken and offset issues by shortening the threaded section--well, on the one I didn't break, that is--and threading on spherical rod ends. I'd think that would both eliminate the bind and solidify the connection to the side-cover levers. One's already shortened, so it might be worth investigation. I'll worry about that when I need more linkage, though.
There are essentially three types of A-body shifter mechanisms: Hurst, Inland, and ITM (which stands for "Inland Tool & Manufacturing", hence the confusion). What most people envision when "Inland" is mentioned is the horrible reverse-trigger 4-speed shifters used from 1966 to early '68. After that disaster, Chrysler went back to Hurst for their 4-speed shifters and stuck with them for a long time--indeed, to the end of A833 production for the pickups in 1987. 3-speed manuals were always Inland shifters, with the same triangular, rubber-isolated 3-bolt handle pattern, but they did not have a reverse trigger. Inland, for the record, is/was a Chrysler division much like New Process.
Somewhere around '76-'77, Chrysler followed everyone else's lead and changed over to using ITM shifters on the 4-soeed F- and M-bodies. When I say "everyone else's lead" I'm not kidding--throughout the musclecar era, GM's and Ford's basic 4-speed shifter was the ITM unit. A Hurst shifter was always optional except on certain models (Hurst/Olds, for example). Yep--the other two manufacturers were buying their shifters from Chrysler. A quick eBay search of nearly any GM/Ford musclecar and "ITM shifter" will get results.
ITM is Inland, but the "ITM" design looks very similar to a Hurst. It has no visible physical reverse trigger. I believe it only used either an embedded (non-removable) shifter handle or the bayonet (push-in) retention. I've never seen one with a bolt-on handle, but I haven't really looked either. Mopar applications are always bayonet. The linkage is rubber-isolated at the shifter, and non-Mopars seem to use stamped "saddle" type swivels rather than Hurst's machined pins. Some, possibly all of the Mopar units also had "PUSH" written on the shift knob by the reverse position, as they required you to push down on the knob to engage the reverse gate. Most ITM shifters are clearly marked as such in huge letters stamped into the side of the shifter facing the driver.
Out of habit, I refer to all ITM shifters as "Inland" since that's technically what they are. I've never futzed with a reverse-trigger unit, nor would I bother. Their only place in the world is in high-dollar restorations. I don't feel the ITM version has any place in the world unless you somehow break/lose your Hurst on a road trip and need to get home.
Though they look very similar to a Hurst, even sharing the bolt pattern in later years, they don't work like a Hurst. They're mass-production junk of the highest order, with rubber isolation not only in the linkage and stick mount, but also isolating the selector arm from its pivot pin. There are no machined parts inside; everything is stamped. It's a "doesn't violate patents" variation on the function of a Hurst, replacing precision pins and bores with stamped tangs and notches.
The problem in the Mopar world is that the F/M-body ITM stuff is extremely hard to discern from Hurst if you don't have all the parts as an assembly. The swivels are machined pins. The mount looks identical to the Hurst unit, but is a bit thicker. That means the rods look a damned sight like Hurst units, but they don't interchange due to greater offsets. If you refer back to my build thread on the '69 Valiant and all the trouble I had with the shifter, I had a Hurst shifter, genuine Hurst rods and transmission levers, and severe bind in both the reverse rod and 1-2. I did not realize at the time that I had an ITM mount on the transmission. Everything bolted together perfectly, and I only realized the error when I pulled a complete, functioning factory A-body Hurst setup off a parts transmission and started comparing.
As far as LH threads go, I can't verify that all the ITM shifters used it on the rods. Maybe they were that afraid of George Hurst; I don't know. I just know that I have two shift rods in my garage, one for 1-2 and one for 3-4 (or OD) that have backward-ass threads on 'em... and one of 'em is broken (potentially) due to my inattention. Curiously, I have an extra reverse rod that's stripped, but that is/was definitely RH thread. I'm sure both sets of linkage came as sets on transmissions I've bought over the years.
Anyhow, I'm wondering if I couldn't overcome the both the broken and offset issues by shortening the threaded section--well, on the one I didn't break, that is--and threading on spherical rod ends. I'd think that would both eliminate the bind and solidify the connection to the side-cover levers. One's already shortened, so it might be worth investigation. I'll worry about that when I need more linkage, though.
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
I neglected to mention that I picked up a set of "new" seats for this car. The fella that sold me the Challengers texted me back in August and asked if I was interested in the seats from his '70 Swinger. He went full race with the car, so the factory bench and rear seat were just wasting space in his garage. They're black, and recently reupholstered with Legendary covers. The headrests aren't great, but they're OK and don't need to be perfect (those '69-'70 headrests are always trash). The only problem was he caught the roll cage with the rear seat bottom and tore it. The tear is pretty ugly, but so is the Valiant. For $300 and a '72-up Challenger lower grille, good seats with slightly-damaged Legendary covers and decent headrests was just too good a deal to miss.
Strangely enough, I don't have any pictures of 'em. I'll get some when I've got some daylight.
Strangely enough, I don't have any pictures of 'em. I'll get some when I've got some daylight.
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
The "new" seats went into the car on a temporary basis at some point over the winter, just to get them out of the garage. The front's all bolted down and such, but there's no carpet. I still have some floor work to do before installing the new carpet and finalizing the seat installation.
Stretcheroo was on vacation yesterday and today, and the shop was fairly slow so I had the guys do an oil change on the ol' girl... first one since 2006. I'm all about maintenance, necessary or not.
Austin also checked the rear axle and the transmission, finding the former to be nearly a quart low and the latter to be half a quart or so. I told him not to worry too much about it since both parts will be replaced eventually, but he added some to both because, well, that's just the guy he is. He asked me if I had the "weird 8-point Torx-lookin'" tool needed to remove the diff plug. I told him it's not a special tool, it's simply either a 3/8" or 1/2" drive. He looked at me like I was nuts, but we went into the shop and he grabbed his ratchets. 1/2" was a perfect fit. "OK, that's pretty fuckin' cool."
He also commented on how solid the car is underneath. It really is, which I essentially knew but it was my first time fully under it to see everything. Other than a weak RH rear floor, it's really good--far better than Agnes was.
I still need to get after the carb, too. It's a real pain in the arse to move with no accelerator pump!
Stretcheroo was on vacation yesterday and today, and the shop was fairly slow so I had the guys do an oil change on the ol' girl... first one since 2006. I'm all about maintenance, necessary or not.
Austin also checked the rear axle and the transmission, finding the former to be nearly a quart low and the latter to be half a quart or so. I told him not to worry too much about it since both parts will be replaced eventually, but he added some to both because, well, that's just the guy he is. He asked me if I had the "weird 8-point Torx-lookin'" tool needed to remove the diff plug. I told him it's not a special tool, it's simply either a 3/8" or 1/2" drive. He looked at me like I was nuts, but we went into the shop and he grabbed his ratchets. 1/2" was a perfect fit. "OK, that's pretty fuckin' cool." He also commented on how solid the car is underneath. It really is, which I essentially knew but it was my first time fully under it to see everything. Other than a weak RH rear floor, it's really good--far better than Agnes was.
I still need to get after the carb, too. It's a real pain in the arse to move with no accelerator pump!
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
Not wanting to leave this car out of the afternoon's festivities, I started working on the chrome-reverse wheels I bought for it last years. What could I possibly need to do to those? Get rid of the chrome, of course! Body color is the finish for me!
Three gallons of muriatic acid to seven gallons of water. I should've used more acid, and by that I mean a higher concentration. I also should've used more solution overall, since I couldn't fully submerge the wheel.
Everything I read online said "When the chrome object is submersed in the acid solution, bubbles will begin to appear as the acid reacts with the chromium." Bullshty, I tell you. About five minutes in, it just looked like a wet chrome wheel.
Well, Rome wasn't built in a day, so I closed the container to hinder evaporation and walked away... for over an hour and a half.
No joy whatsoever. I removed the still-very-chrome wheel and wiped it down with a towel, then put it back into the solution. Only then could I finally hear Don Ho. Make me feel fine, indeed. Mind you, I'd pressure-washed and wiped down this wheel prior to starting.
After it sat for another half hour, I pulled it again and started after it with a Scotch-Brite pad. Yep, that gray crap on the pad used to be chrome plating:
The results weren't exactly what I'd expected, although I'm going to presume I shouldn't hope for much better. See, I expected this quick reaction, boiling the chrome off the wheel down to bare steel. Nuh-uh. What I got is a largely-dechromed wheel that is still decidedly nickel plated.
Yeah, it still looks like it's chrome in that picture, just chrome scuffed with Scotch-Brite. However, looking at a close-up in the lug nut area, the difference is pretty evident. The chrome is still fairly bright at the center register, but about halfway through the lugnut holes the color change is obvious:
I should mention that even with all the acid rinsed away, that sucker flash-rusted in about 32 seconds. Zee chrome? She gone. I'm not terribly concerned about paint adhesion in the lugnut area since I'll be running dog dish hubcaps on these anyhow.
I'm not sure if I should continue to try and remove all/more of the nickel. The wheels were "flash chromed", which is what all production chrome was during the musclecar era. Flash chroming is simply nickel plating on the base metal, then chrome over the nickel, so there's not another layer of plating beneath the nickel to remove. I guess I'm not sure if nickel will blast and take etch primer better than chrome does, because the latter ain't worth a shit. Agnes's air cleaner is 50% chrome again. The etch primer and black wrinkle just fell off over time.
The factory never used triple chroming. The difference is that triple chrome, a.k.a. "show chrome" uses a copper base to smooth and fill imperfections, followed by nickel, then by chrome. That's why when someone has a production part show chromed, it looks pillowy, too smooth, or thick (overchromed). Flash chroming is/was what the factory used since it's more time- and cost-effective. It's not as durable or smooth, but holds pretty well with much better detail. Hurst shifters are a great example--show rechromes never look right, especially around the lettering. Even the repro Pistol Grips were flash chromed. The chrome has already flaked loose from the one I had in the Dakota, despite it being 40 years newer than the other five.
I put the cover back on the acid tote, again to discourage evaporation, since I still have several more wheels to strip (seven at last count--I have a set for Agnes too). I think I'll wait until I can get a couple more gallons of acid and run the concentration between 40-50%, rather than the 30% I used. In the meantime, I'll get this one primed until I decide what color I want to paint the car. The white just ain't workin' for me with that grille.
Three gallons of muriatic acid to seven gallons of water. I should've used more acid, and by that I mean a higher concentration. I also should've used more solution overall, since I couldn't fully submerge the wheel.
Everything I read online said "When the chrome object is submersed in the acid solution, bubbles will begin to appear as the acid reacts with the chromium." Bullshty, I tell you. About five minutes in, it just looked like a wet chrome wheel.
Well, Rome wasn't built in a day, so I closed the container to hinder evaporation and walked away... for over an hour and a half.
No joy whatsoever. I removed the still-very-chrome wheel and wiped it down with a towel, then put it back into the solution. Only then could I finally hear Don Ho. Make me feel fine, indeed. Mind you, I'd pressure-washed and wiped down this wheel prior to starting.
After it sat for another half hour, I pulled it again and started after it with a Scotch-Brite pad. Yep, that gray crap on the pad used to be chrome plating:
The results weren't exactly what I'd expected, although I'm going to presume I shouldn't hope for much better. See, I expected this quick reaction, boiling the chrome off the wheel down to bare steel. Nuh-uh. What I got is a largely-dechromed wheel that is still decidedly nickel plated.
Yeah, it still looks like it's chrome in that picture, just chrome scuffed with Scotch-Brite. However, looking at a close-up in the lug nut area, the difference is pretty evident. The chrome is still fairly bright at the center register, but about halfway through the lugnut holes the color change is obvious:
I should mention that even with all the acid rinsed away, that sucker flash-rusted in about 32 seconds. Zee chrome? She gone. I'm not terribly concerned about paint adhesion in the lugnut area since I'll be running dog dish hubcaps on these anyhow.
I'm not sure if I should continue to try and remove all/more of the nickel. The wheels were "flash chromed", which is what all production chrome was during the musclecar era. Flash chroming is simply nickel plating on the base metal, then chrome over the nickel, so there's not another layer of plating beneath the nickel to remove. I guess I'm not sure if nickel will blast and take etch primer better than chrome does, because the latter ain't worth a shit. Agnes's air cleaner is 50% chrome again. The etch primer and black wrinkle just fell off over time.
The factory never used triple chroming. The difference is that triple chrome, a.k.a. "show chrome" uses a copper base to smooth and fill imperfections, followed by nickel, then by chrome. That's why when someone has a production part show chromed, it looks pillowy, too smooth, or thick (overchromed). Flash chroming is/was what the factory used since it's more time- and cost-effective. It's not as durable or smooth, but holds pretty well with much better detail. Hurst shifters are a great example--show rechromes never look right, especially around the lettering. Even the repro Pistol Grips were flash chromed. The chrome has already flaked loose from the one I had in the Dakota, despite it being 40 years newer than the other five.
I put the cover back on the acid tote, again to discourage evaporation, since I still have several more wheels to strip (seven at last count--I have a set for Agnes too). I think I'll wait until I can get a couple more gallons of acid and run the concentration between 40-50%, rather than the 30% I used. In the meantime, I'll get this one primed until I decide what color I want to paint the car. The white just ain't workin' for me with that grille.
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
I'd considered that, and I plan to blast the wheels regardless. It certainly won't hurt to re-dip after blasting. It's hard to tell in the photo, but the finish is actually brushed due to me using the Scotch-Brite pad to remove the chrome. I plan on upping the acid concentration before I go any further, though. It was a very slow process at 30%.
I guess my question is whether the nickel really needs to be removed. I would assume it does, but if paint would adhere to it, I'd just run it. I think if it's etched enough by the acid, paint would stick. Since I have to paint eight wheels, though, I'd like to find what works before I have to do eight wheels twice. I guess I'll blast it and try again with the acid.
The weather was uncooperative yesterday, so I didn't get any further with this anyhow. This is the kind of thing I'll only do outdoors, be it the acid bath or the blasting.
69.5CUDA
Blah Blah Blah
im of the assumption it might stick for a while but i doubt it would hold long term..ie hold longer than over chrome but by how much?...i know ive had issues with plated stuff ive stripped in the past on motorcycle parts....i wouldnt be happy till i was down to bare steel if i was shootin the paint
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
Fortunately for you and unfortunately for me, getting chrome off aluminum is much easier. Hell, it falls off on its own in just a few years since chrome and aluminum are really not compatible materials. Even though aluminum can be directly chromed, it's not a good bond and the durability is inferior to chromed steel. Once you've blasted through a small area of chrome on aluminum, or if it's already cracked or bubbling, the chrome blows off easily in huge flakes. Paint sticks to aluminum far better than it does to any sort of plating, especially if blasted and/or etch primed.
The big-bolt wheels on which I'm currently concentrating are from the late '60s (the decal says "1957-68 PLYMOUTH"; I'm guessing they hadn't tried 'em on a '69 yet) and the chrome is still stunning--they look brand new, in fact. Nickel is very compatible with steel, and chrome very compatible with nickel. Paint doesn't stick well to either, even after sandblasting. I know this because both the etching primer and the black wrinkle paint on my once-chrome unsilenced air cleaner are coming off in huge chunks, even sheets, after only a few years. I blasted the hell out of that thing prior to painting and etch primed. I did not, however, blast all the way to raw steel.
I never did a thing to the base of that air cleaner, though, because it's invisible when installed. I think I'm gonna toss that sucker in the acid and see what develops.