WCraigH
-
Posts
1,139 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Content Type
Forums
Gallery
Events
Posts posted by WCraigH
-
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(snip) I have also wondered about using the fords front spindles (with king pins) for doing a disk brake conversion. </div></div>
Yes, it will work, but it is not a bolt-in:
Paul in Las Vegas accomplished this on his 1956 Exec resto.
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(snip) Dick Benjamin's <span style="font-style: italic">TPC</span> article on the V8 indicated that some sort of flow restriction orifice was factory-installed in filter inlet elbow, and a missing one will cause loss of pressure.
Just food for thought. </div></div>
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Also, on a related topic, a full flow filter wouldn't be a [color:"red"] LEAK, albeit a small one.
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(snip) My pressures are ok at start up and when at cruising speed, but when the oil is hot the pressure will drop quite low - to sub 5 at idle.
I'm keeping my eyes and ears open (and fingers crossed).</div></div>
Yes, below 5psi at hot idle is VERY worrisome. Try PackardV8's trick of [color:"red"] temporarily disconnecting (blocking) the oil filter feed line and see if that changes anything.
As a point of reference, my 55 Pat has 15-20psi at hot idle and no lifter noise while running. [color:"red"] BUT, the original Pontiac 350 engine in my 1976 Firebird turbo project car had less than 5psi at hot idle. Recently, I inspected the main & rod bearings in it since that motor has been replaced with a fresh Pontiac 400. Most main and rod bearings were very scored with ridges. The crank journals matched. None of the bearings were down to the copper like RO's example. There could be other reasons for low hot idle oil pressure, but the bearings are the [color:"blue"] Usual Suspects. <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">Since I had the mains and crank done at a shop, I do not know the order of them, but all are shot. </div></div>
So, you removed the crank with the engine in the car, leaving the pistons & rods in their cylinders?
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(snip) My engine is of unknown miles but three mains were totally eaten up and the other two pretty bad. </div></div>
RO: did you establish the replacement main bearing clearance using plastiguage or ?
Also, do you have an opinion as to why the mains were "eaten up"?
I presume that the crank itself was OK, just the bearings were bad. In several crank/bearing failures that I have seen, <span style="font-weight: bold">BOTH</span> were bad. Maybe you were lucky? (If one can call main bearing failure only -- lucky!)
-
I agree with AlK. About the only non-original "upholstery" component on my 55 Pat is the trunk liner. I had it done in Vegas. It's kind of a thin indoor/outdoor carpet material. It's a light brown kind of color to coordinate with the paint color. It looks great and for those not in the know, appears original. I actually like it better than the original trunk mat.
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(snip) The diamond/arrow to the left of the "D" on '55 models corresponds to "D" on a '56 - <span style="font-style: italic">Drive Range</span>. In this range, the trans starts out in low gear (snip)
The diamond/arrow to the right of the "D" on a '55 corresponds to "H" on a '56 - <span style="font-style: italic">High Range</span>. In this range, the trans starts out in high gear (snip)</div></div>
Brian: you have this backward for the 55. Low gear start is the "diamond" next to "L". No low gear start (converter only) is to the left, next to "N".
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That part between the hose's is your trans cooler...(snip) </div></div>
This is another topic that has several previous threads, FYI. On my 55 Pat, I replaced the stock tranny cooler with an aftermarket one mounted in front of the radiator. This is a pretty simple install and will definitely keep the trans fluid cooler than stock. With the T-U, this seems critical to long life and good performance.
Ditto on previous threads about radial tires. Virtually everyone on this forum agrees that radials are a [color:"green"] BIG improvement and well worth the $$$.
-
Switching from pos to neg ground on a 1955 is straight forward. I recall that there have been several threads on this.
Personally, I switched my 55 Pat to neg ground right after I bought it so that I could fit modern electronic ignition (MSD) and modern stereo and I've had it that way for six years. The electric motors (starter, T-L, windows, antenna) don't care about polarity. The original vacuum tube radio didn't seem to care about polarity either. Only the charging system is critical, but you can repolarize the generator easily (see service manual). The regulator might give up once switched (mine did). Then switch the wires on the ignition coil and ammeter (if so equipped) and that's it.
-
Some have recommended Type-F tranny fluid because of better friction characteristics. There's at least one thread on this forum about it.
I use Dexron III also, with no problems, but the T-U in my 55 Pat does act differently when hot compared to cold. When cold, it upshifts and converter locks strongly and earlier in the rpm vs load range. When hot, these are delayed. Mine also "surges" on long grades under normal throttle. This is supposed to be cured by using Type-F, but I haven't tried it yet.
If I were you and were going to completely drain [color:"red"] BOTH the tranny and the converter and clean the filter, I would refill with Type-F.
For what it's worth, I replaced all the fluid in TH-350 in my turbocharged Firebird project car with Type-F when I installed the 400. No problems yet with 500 ft-lb torque.
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(snip) I know about the major suppliers, bought a muffler and tailpipe from Kanter. I'd really like to know of some other sources too.</div></div>
There's a guy in the midwest who publishes a "Packard Sources" compendium, organized by category and alphabetical. I loaned my copy to a friend and never got it back, but I believe it's $5-10. Maybe someone on the forum has his name and address. It's definitely worth having because there's a couple of hundred vendors listed.
-
From this article, it sounds like you can't figure out what is wrong with your new car even if you are a computer whiz!
-
There's a car in there??? Whatever possessed you to look?
-
NO. They are under the car by the T-L motor.
-
On the 1956, the solenoids actuating the T-L motor are mounted on the driver side front inner fenderwell:
Check the fuseable link connected to the buss bars on top. If the fuse is good and you have 12V there, temporarily and quickly jump one of the solenoid side terminals to the buss bar. This will bypass the compensator control box and actuate the leveling motor directly. We can diagnose from there.
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Craig, Have you run any simulations with forced induction? (snip) </div></div>
No, not on the Packard V-8. I've run several on turbocharged Pontiac 350, 400 and 455.
I haven't run the Packard V-8 because my Panther 374 has 10:1 CR, which is too high for super/turbo- charging. It would be cool though to build the right motor (8:1 CR) and fit one. However, I wouldn't do it without first fitting EFI and getting that to run right. There was a previous thread on EFI, if you haven't seen it.
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(snip) Have you run simulations that limit the displacement to 374 to see what improvements might be done for your Panther Project, in various stages of increasing complexity? For instance, start with simple porting, then larger valves, then an "available" Isky cam (of the period), and then different "custom" cam profiles. I'm just curious as to what might have been <span style="font-style: italic">reasonably</span>possible for '56. </div></div>
Yes. The 374CID Panther engine has a 625CFM Edelbrock Performer (nee Carter AFB) carb, Lazer hydraulic cam (275/280, .491/.496) and deburred heads simulated 360HP-5000 according to the D2K software.
A "hot street" version with 2x4bbl carbs, small tube headers, ported heads and mechanical flat tappet cam (262/270, .450/.450) simulated 450HP-5500. The big jump in HP would be difficult to achieve in [color:"red"] this reality since headers are physically difficult to fit because of the T-L and nobody has any experience porting Packard heads.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> BTW, when it comes to the "future" for Packard, I have some copies Advanced Engineering notes (probably from some monthly meeting) that indicate that the emphasis for engine development (at least late in the 1955 calendar) was on fuel injection - citing increased maximum torque at lowere RPMs with a flatter curve, though with just a slight increase in HP. Mind you those notes are very sketchy - no specifics. </div></div>
At least we have reason to believe that this was real because of the pic on the PI website showing an FI prototype on the V-8. We also know that those mechanical FIs of the era (Chevy, Pontiac) were very problemmatic.
-
KevinAZ: That was definitely a marguerita-induced posting! Enjoy, guy!
BTW, Angelina Jolie is one of my favorites too. Coincidently, one of her early movies, "Gia", with lots of skin is playing right now on HBO-S. Sad story, but great eye candy.
-
The oil pump driveshaft bushing is on the upper part only. I had the machine shop do it and I wasn't there, so I don't know the bushing particulars.
Drilling the holes in the block in stages (1/2, then 9/16) went smoothly. Of course engine block cast iron has some carbon (graphite) in it, so it self-lubricates.
I hand tapped the 3/8NPT, "sneaking up" on the depth that I needed. I went with the minimum possible, given than the thickness in those areas is not the greatest. Here's a shot of the finished result on the #4 main web:
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(snip) When it comes to Chrysler's further developments for '57, in the absence of a Detroit-engineered and -manufactured '57 Packard (not the South Bend "replicars"), has anyone taken the specs for the proposed 440-cid Packard V8 and run them on any computer simulation software like <span style="font-style: italic">Desktop Dyno</span>? </div></div>
Yes, I have that software and did some simulations a few years ago. Here's what it indicated:
1956 Caribbean 374CID 2x4bbl: 309HP-4500, 404TQ-3000 (nearly identical to advertised HP & TQ)
1957 440CID 2x4bbl: 309HP-4000, 466TQ-2000 (displacement increase only, otherwise same as 1956)
Increase valve size 10% to 2.11 intake, 1.77 exhaust (same as Pontiac 1967+): 324HP-4500, 469TQ-3000.
Increase cam timing 10-deg on both and lift by 10% on both to allow for the increase in CID: 343HP-4500, 454TQ-3000.
The latter is the same HP but more torque than the 1957 392CID Hemi in the Imperial, but short of the 300C's 390HP.
Bumping the Compression ratio up to 10.50 bumps the HP up to 351HP-4500.
Installing an Isky-style solid lifter cam (like the 300C) yields 375HP-5000, 450TQ-4000.
Installing slightly ported heads (like the Pontiac SD series) yields: 412HP-5500, 462TQ-3500.
So, according to the Dyno 2000 simulator, the performance potential is certainly there. At 440CID, this engine would still idle reasonably and pull a heavy Packard off the line because even this last combo has 412TQ-2000!
Now this is a [color:"blue"] simulated [color:"red"] alternate reality! <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <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"> (snip) Completely immersing the oil pump in the sump looks like another way to keep air from getting into it. Do you plan on letting the "immersion" supply the bushing and driving shaft with oil, or did you also "install" the passage that <span style="font-style: italic">PackardV8</span> (<span style="font-style: italic">Keith</span>) found? </div></div>
I'll rely upon immersion to oil the top bushing.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The only problem in duplicating your work would be machining and drilling a spacer to properly fit the Packard V8 block - might be beyond the skills of most hands-on owners. Are the spacer and jig(s) something that you plan to market as part of a "kit"? </div></div>
I had the same local machinist who mods the T-L links to adjustable type make the spacer/adapter. It took four tries after throwing away the first one which had been modified twice. But, hey that was the learning curve to get it right. However, given a simple blueprint, this is something that your local machinist could duplicate given the bare block w/rear main cap, oil pump and oil pan. Therefore, I don't plan to offer these. I would also supply the P/N and vendors for the AN and remote filter adapter, so you could buy them yourself.
-
That would be cool. Let me know one way or the other.
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'll say they look like the Pontiac. So much so that I started to pick up a loose intake manifold in my friend's garage, thinking it might be a Pontiac and wondering why he had it in there (!)... (snip)</div></div>
Been there, tried that with a Pontiac intake on a Packard cylinder head. Everything lines up pretty close except that the #1 (Driver side) cylinder in a Packard V-8 is forwardmost in the block and the #2 (Passenger side) cylinder is forewardmost in a Pontiac V-8 (ass backwards and nobody knows why). This eliminates the possibility of adapating a Pontiac 3x2 or 2x4 intake to the Packard.
From pictures, it seems like the Chrysler 383-413-440 intake might work, but I haven't been able to locate one (free) for comparison. If so, several aftermarket manufacturers (Edelbrock, Offy, Weiand) offer 2x4 aluminum intakes for the Chrysler. This might be a "cheap" way to emulate the Caribbean 2x4 setup.
-
Redrilling the existing holes and retapping for 3/8NPT would be impossible with the engine in the car. I made up a couple of crude, but effective jigs to guide the hand drill. Here's the jig for #4 main web:
The jig bolts to two oil pan holes to hold it firmly in place. The wood spacer (meat in the sandwich, so to speak) is to get enough thickness to hold the drill bit firmly in position. Here's the one for the outlet side:
I forgot to take pics of the jig setup for the top of the block, but it bolts to the transmission holes. Also, I used a 1/2-in drill and then a 9/16-in drill for the clearance hole, so the jig gets sacrificed for the 1/2-in step. The spec'd drill for 3/8NPT is 17/64-in hole, but using 9/16-in means that there's more material left for support and it still provides adequate threads for attachment.
One [color:"red"] MIGHT be able to do these mods with the engine assembled, particularly the outlet ones, but control of metal shavings and cleanup would be critical.
Brake drums 51-54
in Packard
Posted
Another view: