TreeSeeker wrote:
Griff,
No it's not the battery. It has been hard to start since I got it about 10-12 years ago. It has had a couple of batteries in that time and it has always been hard to start. If the battery was low it would never get started since I have to crank the engine for 5 minutes or more. And I keep it on a battery maintainer. And I usually top it off with my big charger before I even try to start it.
Fuel pump--my bad, I meant I didn't think it had an electrical fuel pump. I'm concerned that it takes so long because a mechanical pump is only working when the engine is turning. With an electrical one you can turn it on and wait until the fuel line and carb are full before even trying to crank. Electric fuel pumps weren't the norm in 1979, were they?
It also starts right up if I squirt engine starting fluid into the carb. But, of course, that is not easy to do on a regular basis since you have to remove the engine cover and air filter to do it.
A leak in the fuel line sounds like the most probable issue. I will take a look at it. I should probably just replace it.
Thanks for the input.
Okay, maybe it's just because big blocks are hard to start, even when they're new and in good shape. The 383 in my '66 Polara seemed unusually hard to start, compared to my previous '49 Metro. I stopped worrying when a reliable old boy said it was normal. (Also, it seemed to start just as well in subzero temperatures.)
Because big blocks are stubborn starting, small issues can aggravate the difficulty.
Yes, electric fuel pumps existed at least as far back as the sixties, as aftermarket products. Their use as OEM equipment is relatively recent.
You might want to consider replacing the mechanical pump with an electric pump close to fuel tank, for the reason you stated. (My wife and I wait until we hear the pumps in our '90 E150 van 'pressurize' before starting the engine.)
If you do so, be sure to turn off the engine if it stalls or you're in an accident. Otherwise, the pump will just keeping pumping out fuel, creating a potentially dangerous situation.
The main issue with starting fluid is the ether tends to wash all the lubricant off cylinder walls and piston rings. At least that was the case decades ago, manufacturers may have changed the formula since then ... I haven't checked.
Sourdoughs here in Alaska preferred to use WD-40 instead ... until the manufacturer changed the formula to make it less flammable.
A little starting fluid, used infrequently, is okay. Too much can create a situation worthy of the best action-movie special effects.
In the early seventies, some high school buddies and I stopped to jump start the car belonging to some college students. (The car obviously hadn't been tuned and maintained for subzero temperatures ... it was only in the negative single digits.) None of us smelled the starting fluid ether or noticed the empty cans. After it tried to fire up, we found out they'd emptied three (four? five?) cans of starting fluid into the carburetor while cranking the engine. Everything from the carburetor throat to the tailpipe was saturated with ether. Saying the fireball and boom was spectacular is putting it mildly. Even more spectacular was how quickly five large, twenty-something guys exited the vehicle.
