Geoff Weeks

The interesting thing in the 50's is, while the 6-71 2 valve at that time was rated at 200 hp (later improved breathing brought it up to 238) right smack in the hp range of all competitors, both gas and diesel, it doesn't seam to be found in many trucks of the time. Cummins had the 220, many gas engines in the 175-200 range. It lends credence to the story that GM wouldn't sell. P.I.E. experimented with a 6-110, which was a disaster, with the "pin wheel" blower, might have done well with the later Roots. The Buda 844 was the outlier and high HP engine of the day, but had trouble staying together and on the road.

From the cab sheet metal( or sub frame) to the engine block and from the cab sheet metal( or sub frame) to the truck frame.

I have heard, and saw written in an ATHS that GM was very reluctant to sell the (at that time, called) GM diesel to any competitor that was producing truck that GMC line was in competition with. I know they did, My Dart has one and it is listed in the sales lit as one of the engine options. It was a low production truck that GM didn't have anything in the line up that competed with it. Dart was a heavy, mostly off road/oilfield truck. I don't doubt what you say at all, just wondering about the logic at GM? How did they look at Mack vs other Mfg? When it was re-badged Detroit sometime in the 60's that thinking at GM changed, I think they found they could sell more engines than heavy trucks! IHC, and Ford used a lot of 6-71's as well as V8's, KW- Pete installed a fair number of the V8's. I know plenty were put in trucks as a re-power by end users, but in the 50's it was few and far between, that it was a factory install. Most of the mfg were still making and installing gasoline engines. At that time, all large trucks used vendor supplied diesel except Mack, who had their own, just makes me wonder? I would think the "story" I got told was "backwards" , that the other MFG were reluctant to install a GM engine, but that doesn't explain KW-Pete and others that used vendor engines exclusively? 50's were an interesting time in truck mfg.

Depends on which way you circle the globe!

On Eaton/Fuller you can swap in either input, but everyone uses 2" now. All I ran except my Marmon was 14" organic 2" shaft. Haven't had the trans or clutch out on the Marmon, but would bet it is 15.5 puck.

Ah, you too? National was my last choice, IDK why I had trouble with them? CR Classic with the correct driver made quick work, but the old seal, a flat plate and some careful hammer work would get the new seal in without damage if needs must. Since all my trucks and trailers only used a few seal numbers, I kept some on hand. I had spokes, so a brake job meant a seal change as well. One trailer had inboard stud pilot, so that was another that needed a seal change for a brake job.

Always a risk, someone doing something different. The "theory" behind the blunt or rounded end chisel is that concentrates the blow in a small area, it thins and expands the ring, without cutting.

I shout out for CR Classic, not the easiest to install, best done with the correct installation tool. In the end, you will learn what works best for you. There is no "wrong" mfg, it is what has worked best in the past and what is readily available in your area.

That is good news for you. A good coupla hits with a blunt chisel and it should come off. Wear rings are a great idea, made for something that is going to need service, unitized seals goes a step further, and makes the seal and wear ring all in one piece. You should have good luck getting it all sealed back up, regardless if you use grease or oil.

Take one of your old tube type rims and make a fire pit. Put the hub in the pit and wash all the oil out with diesel or kero, then wash with Dawn somewhere else, put some wood in the pit and have a fire to get rid of all the evidence!

Glad to get confirmation that my short term memory isn't totally shot! I thought I read that on here.

Outer seal was used with greased bearing in most cases. I think there is one where one bearing is in oil and the other in grease, that was mentioned a while ago on this site. I never saw that in my time.

Likely an old Stemco, and we are seeing the "wedding band". That is good news, as you can remove the band and replace with a modern unitized seal.

Look around the spindle where the seal rides, does it look to be one piece or is there a ring pressed on? What seal did it have? Stemco (leather) or something else? If it was a Stemco, you can remove the "wedding band" and use a unitized seal in its place. Something that old, I wouldn't want to say for sure. I know the English buses had a replaceable thick ring the seal rode on. I know the old felt seals (grease, not for oil) rode on the axle housing directly. If it does have a ring, to remove it, take a blunt chisel and hit the band in two places 90 deg from each other, you want to deform and expand the band, not cut it, and risk damage to the spindle that can leak.

I had to go look and according to wiki, the V series came out in '57! I didn't think it was that early!

Plastic is fine if it doesn't bridge the gap between two moveable things. It is a replacement for ridged copper line, not a replacement for rubber hose. So from pot to axle mounted quick release, plastic is fine. For pot to FRAME mounted relay valve it is not. edit: yes, I know it is used for the "curly tubes" for the trailer, but that is a special circumstance. I'll have to see if I can find where it is in the regs.

Yes, there are a few types. Old Stemco's used what was called a "wedding band" on the spindle. That may be what I am seeing there. There is also a "seal saver" which is a very thin stainless steel band that is forced over the spindle. Yours looks removable, not part of the spindle, but could be wrong, I'm not there looking at it. There is a way out no matter what, just how much money or work depends on what the part that is worn is.

I'd say you need a new wear ring for the seal!

Huntington, WV delivering brick.

I had two of those, 1st one was crap, cracked from the get go. 2nd one I kept in the one and only truck with stud pilot. They work but if you have to change an inner dual you'll be knackered before you get all 20 nuts off.

I think the 1st highlighted starter would put the solenoid close, but would have to be rotated to clear everything.

This shows the rotational choices with those two starters, I think one of the two should clear the manifolds and block.

Mine hand cranks so easy. The problems come when the gasoline evap's from the carb, then it takes a bit of hand cranking. I set my points with a dwell meter and the timing with a strobe, it never has tried to kick-back when set like that. It should have a hand choke and throttle. I give it a little throttle and set the choke depending on temp. Starting for the 1st time after sitting for a long time, I draw fuel up with a syringe, but still takes some cranking either electric or hand to fill the carb. Once it is full, it fires right off.

This claims to fit a delco 737-Z which is what the 269 takes. https://www.ebay.com/itm/282933350969 But IIRC you are going 12 volt, so I'd be looking in the Leece Neville catalog for a 10 tooth clockwise rotation SAE#1 starter. Last I looked they made some. Check the two highlighted starters

Well my memory is crap, I went out and looked on my Dart and the cab is by Chicago Mfg and it is on North Trumbal not Elston. So wrong about the name and location.