WCraigH
-
Posts
1,139 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Content Type
Forums
Gallery
Events
Posts posted by WCraigH
-
-
Hey guys, I didn't expect this posting to be uncommented upon! Surely some of you with oil pump experience have an opinion.
As far as I know, this is an original one-off for the Packard V-8. But, this kind of modification is not that uncommon, particularly in the flat head Ford V-8 world which has an even worse problem with oiling and filtering.
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course it?s all speculation, but?.. Had Packard remained viable, I?ve read that they had plans to grow the V8 to 440 cid. Add a more aggressive cam and valve train, larger diameter exhaust and drop it into the 1959 Panther (based on the lighter weight short wheelbase ?59 Constellation HT coupe) ???. Well, you get the picture (right WCraigH)? </div></div>
Very interesting!
The 1957 440CID Packard V-8 (one off in "Black Bess") was most likely a +.060 374 (4.185) stroked +0.500 (to 4.000).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Or put that 400+HP motor in the ?59 Packard Hawk Daytona (based on the 3500# Stude GH and available only with the new Borg Warner 4 speed manual) and go set some records!!! <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> </div></div>
The model for this migration path is Pontiac with their Super Duty engines from 1959-63. Although Pontiac's block dimensions are smaller than Packard (almost everyone's are), the cylinder heads are quite similar in layout and flow. So what Pontiac did in NHRA and NASCAR (then Grand National), Packard could have also done, if so motivated and if funds were available in this [color:"red"] altnernate reality.
For instance, a +.090 Pontiac 421 is exactly the same bore/stroke as the Packard 440 I defined above. Pontiac had single 4bbl, 3x2bbl and 4x2bbl intake systems. Pontiac developed special cylinder heads that flowed more than the stock variety and used slightly larger and polished valves. Pontiac also had streamlined (header like) exhaust manifolds in both cast iron (GN) and aluminum (NHRA). Pontiac's Malcolm McKellar developed a series of mechanical tappet camshafts for racing. Ed Iskendarian, Sig Erson and others produced camshafts in both mechanical flat tappet and roller grinds in that era. The Pontiac 421SD NASCAR engine was advertised at 405HP (painted on the hood of the race cars), but probably produced a [color:"red"] LOT MORE (like 500HP).
So a Packard 440CID could have matched this performance engineering because it was all straight forward and logical extensions of the stock motors. Packard V-8 could have also grown to 500CID (like the Caddy), if required (see previous thread on comparative bore size).
And don't forget Fuel Injection and super charging! Mickey Thompson, Don Gay, Arnie "The Farmer" Beswick and others built Pontiac-powered dragsters including top fuel "rail jobs" that made well over 1,000HP.
Ah, that would have been an interesting [color:"red"] alternate reality! <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
-
Here's a bottom view of the new oil output routing:
In the final version, the -10 fittings and lines fit inside the oil pan. I used a more compact 90-deg fitting than that shown in this picture. Also, the adapter was trimmed back and the hole was threaded a little deeper into the adapter.
The 90-deg fitting in the #4 main web is attached at the location of the stock 1/4NPT hole originally used for the steel tubing vacuum line from the vac pump. It has been drilled and retapped for 3/8NPT, which is the smallest size compatible with -10 swivel fittings. The outlet on the side of the block is likewise drilled and retapped.
Although I don't have a pic of it right now, the outlet from the remote filter (or dry sump pump) would be attached at the existing 45-deg hole into the main oil gallery by the distributor. This hole is also drilled and retapped to 3/8NPT.
-
The next oil system modification was to machine a 1-1/2in spacer to lower the oil pump that amount into the oil pan. Lowering the oil pump emerses the driveshaft entry hole that much lower in the oil and reduces the hydraulic head pressure on the pickup side.
This spacer serves an additional purpose which is to reroute the pump output outside the engine. The purpose of this is to mount an external full flow oil filter. It could also be used as the scavenge side of a dry sump oil system!
This is an early mockup, so the -10 lines don't quite line up. I don't have the final version assembled right now, but this pic will give you the idea.
-
Here's a preview of the oil system modifications I have undertaken for my Panther project. Oil pump:
(1) removed vacuum pump
(2) replaced bottom plate with 1/4-in steel plate
(3) machined bottom mating surface for 0.002 clearance with plate
(4) installed bronze bushing in pump body for driveshaft
(5) rotated stock pickup tube 1-1/2in higher than stock (not shown)
(6) replaced driveshaft with stock length plus 1-1/2in driveshaft
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(snip) I'm thinking that carving out such a path, plus bushing the bore for the driving shaft and truing or replacing that shaft is all that is needed to make a reliable pump - fit for even a daily driver (not just trailer queens). </div></div>
Brian, I agree that these oil pump mods are sufficient for a daily driver.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
When it comes to performance purposes, I doubt if there was ever an HD oil pump (since this V8 was in production for not quite two years), but seem to recall that <span style="font-style: italic">CraigH</span> was working on some sort of substitue for his Panther, but it was not a dry sump that was mentioned earlier in this thread. The latter is geared toward extreme racing. </div></div>
There was no HD pump for the Packard V-8 that I am aware of. Pontiac had several varieties of oil pump for their V-8 including the Ram Air V -derived 80psi pump for the 1973-74 455SD.
Rather than take this thread somewhat off topic, I am starting a new thread to give a preview of the oil system mods for my Panther V-8.
-
WRT to T-L design, et al, see:
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(snip)...If you guys like it original thats fine but i like mine slighty customized..Im sure you wouldnt like what i have done to it but when its done it will be one of a kind something no one can say about and old ford,chevy,chrysler they all have been done before,,,but when was the last time youve seen a customized PACKARD...I dont think there is many...(snip)</div></div>
I like my 55-56 Packards slightly customized, so I have no philosophical problem with what you're trying to do. I'm probably as familiar with the T-L and how to modify it as anybody on this forum. Here's the bottom line:
[color:"red"]You can't lower a 55-56 T-L by four inches by modifying the suspension and still have a driveable vehicle. You could probably lower it by 1-in with adjustable or shortened front T-L links. You could probably lower it a couple of more inches by using smaller diameter tires. This ought to get you where you want see it. [color:"red"] BUT, no doubt you'll scrape the frame when going over tall speed bumps or the equivalent and then front suspension travel will bottom out prematurely when traversing bumps. There's no free lunch.
Like you said, it's your car, do what you want.
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Craig, the whole thing can be lowered neatly if you just take a torch and cut the main torsion bars just behind the rubber bushing located about mid-point of the main bars. The car will sit much lower without the need of additional welding or machine work <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> It will also lower the front and rear at the same time.</div></div>
Hey Randy, you're right! What was I thinking? Oh, one minor problem: just don't drive it anywhere.
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well from what i know he wants to get rid of the t links and weld in some sort of boxed frame where the t-links sits and either weld in the chrysler part or make a threaded rod type of adjustment i think.... </div></div>
Why get rid of the T-L links when you can just make them adjustable?
The Chrysler front Torsion bars were indeed adjustable, but were connected to the frame. This is completely different than the Packard T-L.
I'd say that he doesn't understand the Packard T-L suspension and is just guessing.
Even with adjustable front links lowering the whole car, you'll quickly run out of suspension travel.
-
Without more info on the technical details, can't say.
-
I don't know the original grade, but I used grade 5 on my 55 Pat a few years ago and have had no problems, i.e., they're still tight.
Be extra careful about bolt length because all but the outermost exhaust manifold bolt holes intersect the head bolt holes. Too long a bolt will bottom on the head bolt. This could result in improper clamping force on the exhaust manifold and/or lock the head bolt so that it cannot be removed later.
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(snip)
Craig,
The "over square" bore and stroke are a natural for high RPM applications. Just out of curiousity, were some of these valve train tricks carried over from aviation or marine engine designs? </div></div>
I expect that the rocker shaft design was quite well known at that time (late 1940s when the Packard V-8 was designed) for it's stability and strength. It was a design choice completely in line with Packard's "over engineered" philosophy.
It was the rocker-ball stud style that was innovative. Chevy & Pontiac got a lot of cudos for it at the time, although I don't know which GM division came up with it--maybe cross polination. The Chevy and Pontiac varients are not exactly the same, BTW. Anyway, it works really well in stock applications but don't try 500+lbs of open pressure unless you fit a stud girdle and use roller rocker arms!
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(snip) Can a 352 block be bored to a 374 if say .030 won't clean it up? Sometimes it is also cheaper to get stock bore pistons for the next larger stock bore than overbores. (snip) </div></div>
Yes. I have bored my Panther 352 to 374; sonic tests showed plenty of cylinder wall thickness. Paul in 'Vegas has done the same. An article from Hot Rod Mag in the period documented +0.125 overbore of a 352 in a 56J buildup.
The 374 bore size is the same as Chevy (and others), which means you can get custom pistons from any of the hot rod manufacturers relatively cheaply. Also, many engines use that bore size, so rings are no problem.
-
Wow! Titanium valves? dry dump oiling?
What about porting on the heads? What are you going to do about the siamesed center exhaust port? What about the intake manifold and the log-style exhaust manifolds?
Packard-buddy Paul in Las Vegas has run Isky solid lifters, springs and adjustable push rods since the 1970s. He also reports 7000 rpm capability. But the HP is all done at 5500, so what's the point without the above mentioned breathing enhancements?
An old racing friend of mine is Pete McCarthy, a nationally known Pontiac engine performance expert who has written 2 authoritative books on the subject and sells a head porting how-to video. A few years ago, he flowed my 1955 Patrician cylinder head on his flow bench. It performed similar to a 1964 GTO (1963 Pontiac 421) cylinder head. As you may recall, these Pontiac engines were all done at low 5000 rpm, but great on torque due to intake port velocity and other engine parameters. To expect more power (rpm) out of the Packard V-8 without extensive, knowledgeable head porting, is unreasonable.
-
For contemporary comparison, see:
Packard V-8 vs the competition
The high rpm capabilities of the Packard V-8 come from its relatively short stroke (3.5in) compared to bore (4+in), relatively small main and rod bearing diameters, forged rods and last, but not least, the rocker shaft style valve actuation, as opposed to the stud-rocker ball style of the SBC and Pontiac V-8s of the same era.
-
As I posted above, back in March, Packard-buddy Paul in Las Vegas has a 3-speed T85 in his 1956 Exec that he's had since 1970 and is currently restoring. If I remember correctly, he told me that almost all tranny-related Ford parts fit his Packard.
He's also adapted a pneumatic clutch, but that's for another thread.
-
[color:"red"] EXCEPT for inertia and friction.
Since the Packard T-L is not frictionless, the ride height will remain where it last was. If you disconnect the T-L compensator then the ride height will not return to the neutral position from the last dynamic position.
-
NOPE. A Pontiac V-8 oil pump is mounted at an angle to the perpendicular of the oil pan plane, whereas a Packard V-8 oil pump is perpendicular. Also, the Pontiac V-8 oil pump mounts to the block at the oil pan parting line whereas the Packard V-8 oil pump mounts to the rear main cap, a couple of inches lower WRT the oil pan parting line. Other than that...
-
According to their website, Advance Auto Parts acquired Western Auto Parts in 1998. I don't know if Wizard brand was retained or superceded.
The shocks shown on e-bay don't look like the front or rear shocks on either my 1955 or 1956.
-
Front shocks with 'T' bottom fit 1956 [color:"red"] ONLY. 1955 T-L Packards use a 'stud' bottom on the front shocks.
-
What you describe sounds like you lost vacuum boost. Constant application of the brake will "drain" the vacuum reservoir if it is not being replenished by engine vacuum. Check the vacuum lines from the engine to the reservoir to the BTV.
Brake fade should never occur in stop & go, but rather after a very hard stop from freeway speeds.
Low brake fluid level will cause the brake pedal to feel "spongy" or allow the pedal to go to the floor. Since you have a hard pedal, I suspect that your fluid level is OK, but check it anyway.
Personally, I wouldn't get a rebuilt Bendix Treadle-Vac from anybody. If yours is working OK, don't mess with it. Of course, in my case (and a few other posters here), I replaced it with modern technology.
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How hard is it to put mechanical lifters in? And does this slove the lifter clacking noise thats common on the Packard's. (snip)</div></div>
Same effort as hydraulic lifters, except that you have to adjust each pushrod to the length required for the proper clearance (~0.010in). That part is a PITA.
The result would be a bunch of barely a audible clicks all the time instead of a few loud clacks sometimes.
Like I posted above, I wouldn't bother.
-
Another possibility which would create lifter "clack" is worn rocker arm tips like I had on my 1956 Clipper 352 engine:
The worn tips would create extra clearance in the valve train. This MIGHT create a situation where a few lifters were running almost fully extended, not in the middle where they're supposed to be. then, under somewhat lower oil pressure, these lifters can't take up the valve train clearance quick enough. This would cause the clicking you're hearing.
The "bolt-on" solution to this problem is longer pushrods. If memory serves (it usually doesn't these days), the 1956 pushrods are 0.060IN longer than the 1955 pushrods. Some aftermarket cam manufacturers will make up custom length pushrods.
Packard-buddy Paul in Las Vegas is using adjustable pushrods and mechanical lifters in his 1956 Exec and has been doing so since the 1970s. This is another solution, i.e. running mechanical lifters on a hydraulic cam with about 0.010IN clearance.
If I were you, I wouldn't implement any of the above solutions because they're a lot of effort and maybe $$$. Instead, I'd just ignore the clack.
Is this possible?
in Packard
Posted
Someone actually did a section job on a 1956 Exec and turned it into a custom. This was discussed at length on this forum and most everyone puked at the result. [color:"red"] BUT, if you want to see what was done, contact:
Rod and Custom Magazine