1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
Expected Life of a new Stanley
Posted by: SSsssteamer (IP Logged)
Date: May 19, 2003 01:41AM
<HTML>We have personally added over 22,000 miles on our 1914 Stanley roadster since owing it and I am wondering how long can a good thing can last. None of us are old enough to remember, but: What would have been the average expected mileage that a person could have expected to get out of a non condensing 1914 Stanley 20 H.P.when purchase brand new? The new boiler if properly cared for, how long would have it lasted? How long would have the engine lasted before a rebuild would have been needed? The same questions for a condensing 1919 Stanley model 735A. Nowadays we are working with worn out and stressed parts and our dissapointments come all too soon. Most often it is caused by operator error. i.e. Running a boiler too low on water, or driving the Stanley engine faster than it was designed for. (over 60 m.p.h.) Your experienced thoughts would be appreciated. Any reference to this anywhere that I could read?</HTML>
Re: Expected Life of a new Stanley
Posted by: Terry Williams (IP Logged)
Date: May 19, 2003 01:56PM
<HTML>Pat, I think if you put your full effort into maintaining a boiler these days, it will last a VERY long time. But that would mean only using deionized deaerated feedwater and very strict boiler water chemistry and not be entirely practical. Regarding the engine, I wonder if anyone is using trend analysis to determine the condition of their engines? That would include regular analysis of crankcase lubricant and exhaust condensate/waste cylinder oil.</HTML>
Re: Expected Life of a new Stanley
Posted by: Howard Randall (IP Logged)
Date: May 19, 2003 03:42PM
<HTML>Pat, my thoughts and observations:
My father had over 30 Stanley's over his collecting career. He was graduated from college in 1930, and started collecting about that time and up into the early 60's, when prices started to rise beyond $5 to $250! His limit for years! I have his last two cars today - 1910, 10 Hp touring, and a 23, condensing, 5 passenger touring.
My recollection of the cars he collected in the late 40's to the 60's is that if the car had a problem, the boiler was most always the weak link - scorched or otherwise leaking; the latter steel tube type being the worst. Following these were burner problems - plugged vaporizers and cracked grates. The latter, more than likely, resulting from a leaky boiler issue. If the boiler was not totally trash, we could usually, but often briefly, get them going with a few plugs. I can not remember a single bad engine in the bunch.
My father owned the 10HP (above) twice. It was a $5 car that he never brought home, but left in Maine with tree growing up through the hood. He sold it to a man in Portland, ME and latter bought it back, running, in the early 60's. I just changed out the original, 1910, boiler last year! The copper tubes were fine. The tube sheets were not!
Both parents drove Stanley's during WW II. Mother had a 1913, 10 Hp touring. Father commuted too CT from just south of Boston in a sedan of the 20's. Both were original cars. Last year I purchased a 1920 which started out life in CA. This car has 45,000 miles on it, while my 1923 has very low mileage. It came out of Newton and fired up (once we repaired a frozen water line) only later to be beset with steel tube boiler problems.
New boilers, with heavy wall copper tubing, if well maintained (in non- condensing and condensing cars alike) seam to hold up well. It seams that there are far too many low/no water failures than other types of boiler failures on tour. As you noted, increased speed combined with aging and suspect metallurgy are/have been taking their toll on engines. Modern bearings can go a long way toward eliminating these failures.</HTML>
My father had over 30 Stanley's over his collecting career. He was graduated from college in 1930, and started collecting about that time and up into the early 60's, when prices started to rise beyond $5 to $250! His limit for years! I have his last two cars today - 1910, 10 Hp touring, and a 23, condensing, 5 passenger touring.
My recollection of the cars he collected in the late 40's to the 60's is that if the car had a problem, the boiler was most always the weak link - scorched or otherwise leaking; the latter steel tube type being the worst. Following these were burner problems - plugged vaporizers and cracked grates. The latter, more than likely, resulting from a leaky boiler issue. If the boiler was not totally trash, we could usually, but often briefly, get them going with a few plugs. I can not remember a single bad engine in the bunch.
My father owned the 10HP (above) twice. It was a $5 car that he never brought home, but left in Maine with tree growing up through the hood. He sold it to a man in Portland, ME and latter bought it back, running, in the early 60's. I just changed out the original, 1910, boiler last year! The copper tubes were fine. The tube sheets were not!
Both parents drove Stanley's during WW II. Mother had a 1913, 10 Hp touring. Father commuted too CT from just south of Boston in a sedan of the 20's. Both were original cars. Last year I purchased a 1920 which started out life in CA. This car has 45,000 miles on it, while my 1923 has very low mileage. It came out of Newton and fired up (once we repaired a frozen water line) only later to be beset with steel tube boiler problems.
New boilers, with heavy wall copper tubing, if well maintained (in non- condensing and condensing cars alike) seam to hold up well. It seams that there are far too many low/no water failures than other types of boiler failures on tour. As you noted, increased speed combined with aging and suspect metallurgy are/have been taking their toll on engines. Modern bearings can go a long way toward eliminating these failures.</HTML>
Re: Expected Life of a new Stanley
Posted by: David K Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: May 21, 2003 11:19AM
<HTML>To date, I have driven my 1922 Stanley about 35,000 miles. I have no clue how many miles the car had when I bought it in 1970, the speedometer had come from and early '20s Dodge!
If the boiler is properly blown down frequently and kept free from oil and corrosion, there is no reason why it should not last 20 years. My current one is nineteen years old. The only problems I have had with it were oil related, but I think my latest oil separators will end that. Steel tubed boilers have a limited life as the thin tubes rust through if not kept dry when not in use. I think a tube life of 5-10 years is reasonable. I have known copper tubes to last much longer; a freind just replaced a fifty year old boiler that had been built reusing the 1900 tubes from the car's original boiler! It was not the tube bundle that failed!
I have had serious engine problems, but a Stanley type 7 is really much too lightly built for a condensing car chassis, and I have driven the car hard, including climbing Mt. Washington. Given decent lubrication and respect for its limitations, there is no eason why a Stanley engine should not go 50,000 miles between rebuilds.</HTML>
If the boiler is properly blown down frequently and kept free from oil and corrosion, there is no reason why it should not last 20 years. My current one is nineteen years old. The only problems I have had with it were oil related, but I think my latest oil separators will end that. Steel tubed boilers have a limited life as the thin tubes rust through if not kept dry when not in use. I think a tube life of 5-10 years is reasonable. I have known copper tubes to last much longer; a freind just replaced a fifty year old boiler that had been built reusing the 1900 tubes from the car's original boiler! It was not the tube bundle that failed!
I have had serious engine problems, but a Stanley type 7 is really much too lightly built for a condensing car chassis, and I have driven the car hard, including climbing Mt. Washington. Given decent lubrication and respect for its limitations, there is no eason why a Stanley engine should not go 50,000 miles between rebuilds.</HTML>
Re: Expected Life of a new Stanley
Posted by: SSsssteamer (IP Logged)
Date: May 23, 2003 01:27PM
<HTML>Thank you for the experienced answers. Hopfully these long lived Stanleys will give the world drivers confidence that the steam automobile is not just a play toy but a viable means of reliable transportation too.</HTML>
Re: Expected Life of a new Stanley
Posted by: Donald Eckel (IP Logged)
Date: July 19, 2003 01:26AM
<HTML>My grandfather (Earle S. Eckel) ran his 1914 Stanley close to 150,000 miles from 1918 to 1969. In that time he replaced the original boiler at the cruban company in NYC in 1928 and then put in a third boiler in 1950. However, those who knew him, or of him may remeber that he took great care in the type of water he used. He wrote once (I have it somewhere) all of his water stops betweeen Washington, NJ and Detroit that he used with this car. Obviously, based on that record, there where a lot more cisterns in use in the 30s and 40s than in these days!
As to the engine- he replaced the D slide valves at 141,000 miles- I still have those valves with his identification and miles driven on them- they are hardly worn. Obviously he kept good quality oil in the engine.</HTML>
As to the engine- he replaced the D slide valves at 141,000 miles- I still have those valves with his identification and miles driven on them- they are hardly worn. Obviously he kept good quality oil in the engine.</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.