71Polara383
Kid with ballcap
This damage was likely done long ago. It's got over 100k on it and people would junk/scrap worn out cars around 70-75k back in the day.
I'd wager ALOT of un opened original engines have similar issues internally.
Meet Buttercup, a 1972 New Yorker Brougham 2-door Hardtop
- Thread starter ayilar
- Start date
I'd wager ALOT of un opened original engines have similar issues internally.
fury fan
Senior Member
Oh, I know. I'm just the guy that picked up the gun by the dead body when the police showed up.
I learned it from social-justice warriors and the mainstream media.Correlation and causation, much?
71Polara383
Kid with ballcap
I'm probably the guy that kneeled on her neck
@david hill is currently breaking in the rebuilt engine. He recommends that the radiator hoses, which he and I had replaced about 2.5 years ago, should be replaced (more on this below). I checked on Rock Auto, and they have the following Continental and Gates models. I don't know, but to the eyes of both David and me, the pictures look rather different! 
The Gates 20630, which works great on my 1970-1971 Dodges, is not correct: I had bought one back in 2021, and it did not fit Buttercup -- so David had to replace it at the time with a local NAPA part. The Gates 20630 hose is still in Buttercup's trunk, for possible use on a Dodge:
That NAPA upper heater hose from 2021 is now getting changed. David thinks that the likely cause is coolant contamination. Off the car it will thus go after break-in, as will the lower heater hose (which David tells me is swollen at both clamps).
The hoses that David asked me to order for Buttercup this time are Continental (upper) and Gates 20663 (lower). The question was, which is the right Conti part number?
--> For my 70 300 TNT 'vert, I used the Continental 60664 as that was the unit that the manufacturer recommends for a 440 with A/C (and it matched exactly what David had on his own 1969 300 TNT 'vert, see here; BTW, for that Chrysler also, the Gates 20630 was listed as compatible on RA but did not work).
--> However, for a 1972 T-code Chrysler, the Continental website says P/N 60621 for a 1972 NYB with A/C and P/N 60664 for one without A/C.
I am puzzled, because David and I think that the 60664 should work too (@lemondana said, in another situation, that both the 21 and the 64 should work).
Sooo, being curious, what I have just done is to order both (plusa Gates 20663; Edit: by mistake, I ordered the Continental 60659 -- it should fit, we shall see), and then we can see if it matters for the upper hose whether a 1972 Chrysler with 440 has A/C or not.
The Gates 20630, which works great on my 1970-1971 Dodges, is not correct: I had bought one back in 2021, and it did not fit Buttercup -- so David had to replace it at the time with a local NAPA part. The Gates 20630 hose is still in Buttercup's trunk, for possible use on a Dodge:
That NAPA upper heater hose from 2021 is now getting changed. David thinks that the likely cause is coolant contamination. Off the car it will thus go after break-in, as will the lower heater hose (which David tells me is swollen at both clamps).
The hoses that David asked me to order for Buttercup this time are Continental (upper) and Gates 20663 (lower). The question was, which is the right Conti part number?
--> For my 70 300 TNT 'vert, I used the Continental 60664 as that was the unit that the manufacturer recommends for a 440 with A/C (and it matched exactly what David had on his own 1969 300 TNT 'vert, see here; BTW, for that Chrysler also, the Gates 20630 was listed as compatible on RA but did not work).
--> However, for a 1972 T-code Chrysler, the Continental website says P/N 60621 for a 1972 NYB with A/C and P/N 60664 for one without A/C.
I am puzzled, because David and I think that the 60664 should work too (@lemondana said, in another situation, that both the 21 and the 64 should work).
Sooo, being curious, what I have just done is to order both (plus
Last edited:
Well, folks, the verdict is in. From @david hill a few minutes ago:
1. "The lower hose 60659 is the proper lower hose fit." No surprise there, but nice to confirm.
2. " The Continental 60664 is a perfect upper rad hose fit. The 60621 doesn't have enough belt clearance." David was expecting this outcome, but I was not as the manufacturer specifically recommends the 60621 for a Chrysler with 440 and A/C (see my post above). BUT it is not really surprising, as David pointed out to me, because the same manufacturer recommends the 60664 for a 1969 or a 1970 Chrysler with 440 and A/C -- and David and I both installed the 60664 on our 1969 and 1970 300 'verts, both of which have A/C and a 440 TNT -- and it is a perfect fit for both cars.
Bottom line, for A/C cars, I will use the 60664 for all fuselage Chryslers with 440 and A/C.
1. "The lower hose 60659 is the proper lower hose fit." No surprise there, but nice to confirm.
2. " The Continental 60664 is a perfect upper rad hose fit. The 60621 doesn't have enough belt clearance." David was expecting this outcome, but I was not as the manufacturer specifically recommends the 60621 for a Chrysler with 440 and A/C (see my post above). BUT it is not really surprising, as David pointed out to me, because the same manufacturer recommends the 60664 for a 1969 or a 1970 Chrysler with 440 and A/C -- and David and I both installed the 60664 on our 1969 and 1970 300 'verts, both of which have A/C and a 440 TNT -- and it is a perfect fit for both cars.
Bottom line, for A/C cars, I will use the 60664 for all fuselage Chryslers with 440 and A/C.
Last edited:
As Michel stated above, I found clearance issues w/ the 60621 comes pretty close to the Alt -A/C dual drive belts. These belts under extreme conditions can come in contact w/ the upper Radiator hose. The A/C compressor placement is exactly the same for 1972 New Yorker as the 1969 - 1970 Chrysler 300. As the first two photos show the original upper hose Vs the last photo 60664 replacement upper hose. I like a little more clearance given Buttercup sees a lot of highway driving.
One of the tasks that Michel want done was to clean and repaint the exposed metal surfaces of the underneath side of the hood. As you can see in the photos below a lot of the hood frame the paint was chipped away or missing. Update I can't upload camera photos taken from my phone. Whats up @Joeychgo, never had this happen before.
3175375
Senior Member
I have ran into the forum limiting picture size. I now have to take a screenshot of the picture and post that.
I rarely complain about much around here, but as a FCBO Gold member I am still using the same camera as I did a few years ago. I expect to be able to post photos taken from years ago. My last posting was 1/25/24 w/ no problems. This greatly effects how to share content.
71Polara383
Kid with ballcap
I reached out to Joey and he said it was my phone. It's definitely a change in the forum.
Here is something to think over. My camera is 10+ years old, (750 dpi) and worked well enough to post the pic on 1/25/24. Yet it doesn't now. The facts don't add up. I can post anywhere but here. Definitely a problem w/in the forum after 1/25/24.
73Coupe
Senior Member
Test photo. Same camera, same photos for me. Sent to computer then uploaded from computer to the site by dragging into message box.
I always download from my phone as a jpeg (about 1mb ea). The raw files are about 3mb each.
But I thought the site automatically downsizes images no matter what their original size is?
I always download from my phone as a jpeg (about 1mb ea). The raw files are about 3mb each.
But I thought the site automatically downsizes images no matter what their original size is?
Very nice 1966 Cadillac. Looks like an Eldorado, rather than a de Ville -- but it seems to be missing the Eldo script on the front fender. Any interior photos?
73Coupe
Senior Member
Definitely an Eldorado. I checked the original photo and the script is there. I didn't take any interior shots, but I took a close-up of the Diamond back tires, link: Let's see your original tires
Here are the before and after photos to my post #408.
Here are the last of the before photos. If you look closely, you can see rust pits in the metal surface which had to be sanded out. some heavy pitting areas remained after multiple attempts sanding priming.
The finished product. not perfect. The paint pattern is exact replication attempt.
73Coupe
Senior Member
Wow, I can tell that was a lot of work to get that underside just to the point of paint ready. Unless you had it blasted?
My thoughts on blasting were getting rid of all the media afterwords. Also possible contamination during the paint process = complete disaster.
Similar threads
