WCraigH
-
Posts
1,139 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Content Type
Forums
Gallery
Events
Posts posted by WCraigH
-
-
In my original post, I mentioned the Rochestor Quadrajet. During the late 1960s and 1970s, the QJet was spoken of derisively as "Quadra-Junk". Most were replaced with spread-bore Holleys (a piece of junk) or the Carter ThermoQuad (a really good carb).
Today (OK, the last decade), high perf enthusiasts have come to realize that the QJet is truly an outstanding carb; one just has to be somewhat selective on which model to use as some are overcome with techno-fixes to meet ever changing and more stringent emissions standards during the 1970s and early 1980s.
The QJet has two means to adjust the 2nd-ary air valve. One is a spring and one is a "vacuum break". They act sort of like the spring and shock combo on a suspension, i.e., the combination is critical.
A casual backyard hot rodder could easily adjust the tension (if they owned a small allen wrench) and usually the "best" adjustment was to loosen the spring somewhat, depending upon what other mods had been done to the car.
Modifying the "release rate" of the vacuum break was somewhat more difficult since it required enlarging the bleed hole (to speed up air valve opening) for quicker response. It was also possible to slow down the air valve opening by making the bleed hole smaller, but for hot rod purposes, this usually wasn't required.
A third adjustment could be made to the ultimate angle of the air valve at WOT, but this was only required in the case of early Firebirds which by GM mandate had to have 10HP less than exactly the same engine in GTOs. This was a LB/HP limit imposed by GM corporate. Pontiac reduced the HP by limiting either the air valve opening and/or the 2nd-ary throttle valve opening angles to less than optimum. Hot rodders also quickly figured out this mod.
Like I originally posted, technology in carbs has been essentially stagnant for many decades. But because of nostalgia (muscle cars), NASCAR and NHRA rules (refusing to evolve to EFI), carbs and their mods are alive and well. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
-
Can a NAGS number be converted to a dimensional specification? I tried to find same on-line with a few simple Google searches, but only found sites pointing me towards vendors.
I don't "need" these dimensions right now, but it would be interesting. If the NAGS xref is like the Hollander xref, their statement about X fitting Y is not always complete.
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What would everyone recommend on the approach to the boring of the engine and piston replacement? Is there an advantage to any sizes for boring, and the selection of piston parts? (snip)</div></div>
This is the same question I answered above in a general fashion. To be specific: your 1955 Clipper has a 320CID V-8, which has a stock bore of 3.817". A Chevy small block 283CID has a bore of 3.870". If you overbored your Packard +.063" to 3.880", it would be the same as a Chevy 283+.010". [color:"red"] OR, you could overbore +.083" to be the same as a Chevy 283+.030", a very common size. In any case, you'll have to have the pistons custom made, but at least you can use std ring sizes.
As far as ring widths are concerned, Packard used 5/64" top, 5/64" 2nd and 3/16" oil. The piston manufacturer will know what the 283 SBC stock ring widths are (they may or may not be these sizes, but 350 SBC are), so use what is commonly available.
As far as ring material, use a "moly" top ring, a cast iron 2nd ring and stock tension oil ring. The cylinder bore finish will have to match the ring choice, but the machine shop will be able to provide this.
If I were you, I would avoid cast reproduction pistons (like Egge), as they won't stand up to any kind of heavy-duty or performance use. Why don't you call Ross pistons and talk to one of their tech guys? You may have to provide a sample used piston, so they can verify pin height, pin boss width, etc. You won't have to worry about valve notch location or angle, all you need is a flat top piston.
-
PackardV8: Unless I'm missing something in your suggestion, even with an spacer ring, one would still have to machine or adapter-fit the block or tranny case to mate one to the other since the bolt patterns and sizes are completely different. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />
Also, the whole assembly would be that much longer, which may exacerbate other issues like crossmember location and driveshaft adaption.
-
Recent posts only validate the "hobby" of restoring and driving our beloved Packards is alive and well. For that, I and I'm sure many others, even outside this DF are very grateful.
The interchange on this DF is superb, putting aside the minor distractions.
Now my idea for a new thread: The purpose of this thread is to encourage those posters and lurkers to post a reply to cite where this DF has been particularly helpful in their own endeavor to restore, complete a project or maintain an existing Packard. The point being that, with this kind of feedback (and I know there are a lot of lurkers and infrequent posters out there), we, as a group, may be encouraged to start other useful threads (e.g, PackardV8's 55-56 Xref) or other website related info (TurboPacMan's Packard Engineering Discussion Group), my own website and Las Vegas Paul's 56 Exec project.
Who "woulda thunk' it that there was this much stuff going on in the world of Packards, almost 50 years now defunct?
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I've often wondered about his bidding so much for all sorts of parts, weither he has that many different models or may be a vendor?</div></div>
Yes. Tucson (AZ) Packard.
I've encountered him at the PI meets in Orange, CA. Really good stuff, just $$$$. That seems to be OK with the Newport Beach crowd who are usual show cars at the PI meets.
BTW, at the PI meets I attended (last in 1999, the 100th anniversary one), there is a vendor "parking lot sale" on the last day. Back then, I bought a pair of really good used 1955-56 wheel covers for like $40 per (don't remember the exact price, but about that). I have since lost one of those (see my previous thread on wheel covers staying on NOT), but all of Circo's parts were in very good to excellent condition, but way $$$.
I have no problem with that...hey, supply & demand and he's in it as a business. There'll always be the "Newport Beach" guys who never turn a wrench on the own cars, but just write a check to the restorer or in Jay Leno's case (a PI member), pay their salary. They support the USA economic system, so that's OK by me.
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">how about expanding of "how to add a chorme strip to your 56 clipper excutive or maybe the panther tail light lens" i think it would add a "specal mystique" to allready great car!!! </div></div>
Paul's wife Sue Ann gave me a big box of project pictures to go thru for the purpose of adding to "Paul's Exec" section of my website. There well may be shots of the assembly and if so, I'll post 'em here and on the website.
The way Paul explained it to me was:
He had a broken lens to use for mockup and practice. Once he finally got the curve and length correct, he had to figure out how to permanently attach the vertical trim piece. He tried using tabs at the top and bottom, but didn't feel that they were secure enough and also didn't look quite right. So he used the ubiquitous JB Weld to attach two small stainless steel screws to the inside channel of the trim piece. Then he [color:"red"] carefully drilled two corresponding holes in his [color:"red"] new lenses. The rest was simple assembly.
I agree it looks great. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />
BTW, Paul did [color:"red"] NOT use the wimpy rubber gaskets from Steele when mounting the lens or the housing. He thought they were effectively useless. Instead he used some aerospace tape with sticky back cut to fit. Unfortunately, his roll of this tape was purchased at a Boeing surplus sale and Paul has no idea where to get more. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Craig, what about the inner piece of chrome on the edge of the fender
rising up to meet the antenna. Is that stock Executive??</div></div>
Yes.
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(snip) a method for polishing a dull and lifeless windshield. Anyone have any luck with same? (snip)</div></div>
I have a collector car restorer buddy here in Pahrump, NV who used to own a glass shop. I have asked him the same question. His response was that while one may be able to polish out haze and even minor scratches, the windshield will NOT be optically correct after the polishing.
I have tried to polish out some bad scratches on the windshield of my 1976 Firebird turbo-project car, but with no success. Paul in Las Vegas tried polishing a section of the rear window on his 56 Exec project that had been accidentally splattered by a welder, but to no avail. A "google" search turns up several products, but their efficacy is unknown. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />
If anyone actually had success polishing a windshield, it'd be great to know how they did it.
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks for the information Randy. I will definitely look at the hardened valve seats. I am guessing that the hardened valve seats address the no lead gasoline issue??</div></div>
Yes.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Does anyone have experience with what is the best approach to the rebuild. Specifically about boring, balancing, piston and other stuff being replaced with a specific diameter, or even brand name parts???? </div></div>
You should be able to overbore up to 1/8", but sonic test to be sure. If you pick a "standard" Chevy or Ford final bore size, then you can use rings for that application. Custom forged pistons would also then be little problem, with just the pin height being custom. I got a set from Ross Forged pistons at 4.125 (352CID+0.125) that were reasonably priced. In any case, balance the entire assembly.
The big problem is bearing availability. Check the usual suspects and get the bearings first. 0.010 oversize are N/A, it appears. There is no interchange on crank or rod bearings that I have ever found.
Good luck and keep us informed.
-
OK, Final Answer:
The vertical decorative strip is a custom (OMG!) detail by Paul. It started life as a 1970s Lincoln side trim part. I thought it looked really cool and figured I'd give all the "know it alls" on the DF a little identifier-fun. Seemingly, almost all knew it wasn't an original detail, so y'all are pretty good.
The twin rear antennas ARE stock (option), but Paul replaced the non-op original ones with some adapted, used Ford units. They are somewhat shorter in the retracted position when compared to his 1956 Caribbean HT.
-
While at Paul's on this last Monday, we also R&R'd the driver side power window motor in my 1955 Patrician. It had suddently quit a few days before. Paul had several used ones in his stock of parts (he never throws anything "Packard" away, especially parts that actually work). Here are a couple of points about this R&R for anyone that has to do this job in the future:
1) The motors are "handed", left and right and are NOT interchangeable. Front and rear on the same side (for the 4-dr anyway) ARE interchangeable.
2) There are 2 power wires (up/down) with a grounded body. The wires are color coded (yellow and black) with gendered connectors (male-female, female-male). BUT, in my case, the motor operated in reverse of the original, i.e., down position moved the window up and vice versa. We have no idea why. It's not the polarity difference between 1955 and 1956 because when I changed the polarity on my 55 Pat from pos to neg, the windows still moved in the correct direction. Of course rewiring the connectors fixed this problem.
3. The motor can be removed without removing the lever mechanism (we used a dime as a screwdriver because of the restricted space), but essentially cannot be reinstalled with the lever mechanism still in place. This is because there is a triangular 3-holed plate that the mounting screws screw into and this plate free floats, making aligning the holes and starting even 1 screw "in the blind" not really possible. You have to remove the lever mechanism and attach the motor on the floor or bench.
4. This job is best performed with a helper to hold the window in the proper position. The window will NOT fall to the bottom of the door because of metal stops, but getting the lever mechanism out and then properly aligned on reinstall requires moving the window up/down for best fit.
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm confused. Your first paragraph leads me to believe that the replacement windshield is smaller in the verticle than the original by 1/2 inch???? (snip)</div></div>
To clarify: The replacement windshield is the correct size, only being 1/8" shorter than the one that was removed. The 1/2" (or maybe 3/8") difference in the fit into the windshield FRAME is entirely in the rubber.
Paul ordered the rubber from Kanter, but Steele Rubber manufactured it and it was with them that the subsequent conversations occured, with no solution offered.
BTW, Paul has a 1955 Caribbean convertible and is well aware of the difference in windshields.
IMO, Paul did a magnificent job on this fix and that is just one example that shows the level of craftmanship he has brought to bear on his 1956 Exec project. I saw this new, but modified windshield being installed on Monday (two days ago) and it fits perfectly now.
I didn't ask where Paul bought the new windshield, but he did say it cost $775 and the rubber was around $250. So with the 24hours of labor added by Paul to fix it (at $0.10/hour, the usual rate for us hobbyists), Paul has well over $1,000 in just the windshield.
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I'd say this is a view of the Exec that belongs to Craig's buddy, Paul.
</div></div>
Correct.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> On the other hand, the photo could very well have been taken inside one of the top-secret buildings at "Area 51." After all, Craig is out there in Nevada, and for all we know, he might be conspiring to sell Packard dies to aliens! <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> </div></div>
This is an example of "reverse engineering" from one of the UFOs stored at S-4 next to Area 51. Bob Lazar stole this design from there in 1989, but before his famous interview by George Knapp on Las Vegas TV Channel 8, Bob had given it to my buddy Paul for safekeeping. After all, who would look for 24th century technology intalled on a bunch of old Packards? <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
-
Packard-buddy Paul in Las Vegas ordered a new windshield and rubber surround back in January 2004. When both arrived, the windshield did not fit by about 1/2" (1/4" top and bottom) in the vertical dimension. Phone calls to the manufacturer were to no avail. The new windshield measured about 1/8" shorter than the replacement, so the problem was the rubber part.
In his book "Revived from the Dead" (1955 400 Restoration), Billy Kennerly described the same problem with new windshield fit. He "solved" the problem by fitting a rubber insert into the top and bottom channel between the windshield glass and the rubber surround. This did not seem a good solution to Paul because he felt that there was insufficient capture of the windshield by the rubber.
So, Paul applied a couple of large tubes of JB Weld to the top and bottom of the windshield to "enlarge" it by the required 1/4" top and bottom. This effort took 3 days of work: apply, scrape, grind, apply, etc. in a series of build ups. Here's a sample of the finished fix (the windshield fits snugly now):
-
What 1956 Clipper or Executive model or option for them had this taillight detail?
-
Hi Joe!
How far have you actually gone on implementing these modifications? <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Never mind, I made a mistake. I own a 1953 Clipper. No wonder it doesn't fit. Now I'm stuck with a Honda booster (fitting a a 1956 Clipper) and 4 holes in my fire wall. (snip) </div></div>
There shouldn't be a difference between a 1953 and 1956 as far as the brake mouning is concerned. On the Panther Project, the MPB booster & MC mount to the toe plate, NOT the firewall, as per this picture:
-
Now here's one you don't see every day: a <span style="font-weight: bold">Graham</span>! And a fine looking automobile it was, indeed. For us old car aficionados, it was fun to see.
-
Amongst the late-1930s era cars at the show was this "commercial" example of the 1938 Oldsmobile. Hey, it's technically an orphan, but I didn't think it was one of the better looking examples. Anyway, here it is for your perusal.
-
One of the last Packard's near contemporaries is the <span style="font-weight: bold">Desoto</span>. There was a nice example at today's show. It was a 1957 or 1958 (not sure since it left before I could check the reg card). Anyway, gotta love those big-ass tail fins!
-
Here's a 1939 Nash Lafayette. Except for maybe the Graham (follows), it was the best looking late-1930s car there. I particularly liked the front fender line. The overall body style was quite attractive. However, this car needs a lot of TLC, because there is some serious rust-cancer in quite a few places. However, it did have the original driveline and was [color:"red"] DRIVEN to the show, albeit on a DMV 10-day temp permit.
-
A 1955 "Hash" or Hudson Hornet in Nash clothing! It had a 6-cyl engine, but I had hopes of seeing a 320CID Packard V-8; no such luck. It was a nice resto anyway.
-
There were about 65 cars at todays's car show here in Pahrump, NV. In addition to the <span style="font-style: italic">Usual Suspects</span> kind of vehicles one would expect, there were some interesting ORPHAN cars that I hadn't seen before. I'll post JPGs following.
Because I arrived relatively late (#60 out of 65), I was parked next to some Harley Bikers. We're talking decent lookin' biker chicks with low cut tank tops with <span style="font-weight: bold">Harley Emblem</span> tatoo'd across their back kind of folks. But, they were very civil and friendly. Anyway, one of the more interesting extended conversations I had today was with one of the biker guys. He initiated the conversation and professed his deep admiration for Packards, particularly the last few model years. He was very knowledgeable about mid-50s cars, but had never seen a Torsion-Level Packard close-up before. Of course, I couldn't resist demonstrating same! Hey, these bikers were OK, IMHO.
Fortunately (for me it turned out) my feet were killing me, so I left at about 2:15PM right after my Patrician was judged. My timing was impeccable, since about 1/2 later, there was (1) a power outage affecting the whole valley, (2) a sand storm wherein one couldn't see 20ft and (3) a thunderstorm with all the spectaculars. I was home by then and only had to endure 1-hr of no electricity. My 55 Pat had been parked safely in the garage.
Of course, my 1955 Packard Patrician was the only Packard extant.
Other pics follow.
1956 4bbl carb 2nd-ary air valve
in Packard
Posted
I would love to use a QJet on my Panther engine, but the problem is intake manifold. The 2nd-ary throttle bores are so large on a QJet that they extend out a good 1/2" beyond the cast material on the Packard 4bbl intake. Also, the primaries don't line up either. This mismatch wouldn't be solved with an adapter plate either (you wouldn't want to use one anyway).
From info on other threads, it seems like the 413-440 Chrysler intake [color:"red"] MIGHT fit the Packard V-8, at least with a simple pair of adapter plates. If so, then the Edelbrock #2191 aluminum intake would be a candidate for QJet on a Packard V-8. See this link for a picture of same:
Edelbrock 2191 Intake Manifold
Thanks for the idea! If I can locate somebody with a 413-440 intake laying around, I'll mock it up and see what's what.
Re: The Carb Shop: I've never used them myself (I do my own carb work), but I've heard lots of good things about them.