55PackardGuy

...that might go double for you, Thriller. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

buick5563, Somebody told you wrong. Leinie's is from Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin. Closest local brew to Rochester, far as I can tell, is Schell's. Good stuff--Ulmer is their "premium"--brewed in New Ulm MN, a ways West of Rochester. Thought you'd like to know!!! There are also a bunch of St. Paul and Minneapolis brews, too numerous to list. They may actually be brewed closer to Rochester than Schell's is... but New Ulm is similarly "southern" Minnesota. Too much information... but you fellas might be Thirsty when you get here!

I don't know about magic, but are you thinking maybe of a Seafoam treatment? Drizzling that stuff into the carb with the engine running until it chokes out, then letting it sit overnight has been touted as a de-carbonizing treatment and maybe would help clean varnish and crud off stuck rings. It does clean a lotta crap out, as evidenced by the great show of smoke when you start it the next day. Here's a thought: Do a search on the forum for "stuck rings." You might find the original post.

West, thanks for the info. I found a picture of the '52 Packard Pan American on a website that mentioned the Dayton museum and posted it on the "Packard Firsts" thread, but it was an old photo (early '90s) and someone replying to that post said the car has since been moved to Detroit. I asked about the Dayton museum on that thread and whether it's still in operation--thanks for verifying that it is. I made a road trip to Ohio several years back, and stopped at the Auburn/Cord/Duesenburg museum in Indiana. A real highlight! But If I'd known about the Dayton museum at the time, I definitely would have put it on the itinerary. Next time...

I'd go straight to the infamous "Braided Wire" on the distributor. Also, I've experienced (and heard of many times) difficulties "losing" the spark after replacing an ignition coil. If you've got a known good coil--no matter how old--on another engine, give it a try. Only takes a couple of minutes--easier to replace than internal distributor parts, which may be OK. It seems like these engines have spark forever, even with cruddy old ignition parts, but when you try upgrading stuff the spark can get "lost." And once it's lost you can have a heckuva time finding it again. That "crackle" and warm coil sure sounds like a short... again, the evil braided wire may be the culprit. Good luck!

I'm still looking for info about logging on, too, so the only suggestion I can make for now is don't wear your Packard V8 T-Shirt when you're cleaning up your Packard. Maybe wear the Chebby Small-Block one--you can use the tail for a dipstick rag! <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Thanks Tom! (just kidding about the signs--I've found Pow Wows that way, but that was in Mankato) <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Joe, thanks for bringing this thread back up. It's a very special car and maybe we'll get some updates on progress? Also, I hope Gunnerside got some of his questions answered. That muffler was mentioned and I got to thinkin' (bad sign). Depending on how it's designed internally, this thing could function like an "H" pipe, couldn't it? Pretty clever, if that's how it worked. So, Matt, let us know if you can!

Thanks for the offer, MrEarl (may I call you Speedo?). I won't be staying in Rochester if I go, because it's an easy "day trip" from Mpls. But, anyone have particulars on the meet? Rochester is a fairly big town, so I probably won't be able to just follow the signs tacked to poles (but I might be able to just follow all the cool cars!)

Hm, bubble-wrap on the floor... that might be fun! Pop, pop, pop... <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Joe, This is a great idea! Sounds like no one has done it with a Packard V8 engine IN a Packard. As for the regs, just show up and talk fast, like "The World's Fastest Indian" did! <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> Seriously, some research into what is required might prevent disappointments. But I think Eric has at least one parts car sitting around that could be modified to suit, then drop in the 374 and away you go. (I know, it's not that easy, and I'm not talking about my money) <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Just a note on that "bubble wrap" watershield idea. No need to cut up a windshield sun-shade reflector. Silver-faced bubble insulation is available at the hardware store, usually as duct insulation. Sometimes it's sold in large roles, but I believe sheets are available as well. This retrofit is a "cool" idea in more ways than one! I've also seen it used for insulating the inside of the roof above the headliner. Just glue it on and enjoy cooler motoring in summer and warmer in winter. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

"passing gear maneuvers (remember those???)" <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> NTX, Your points make me think of shade-tree engine "builders" and how they need to do their homework. Like the 327/327 Chevy SB having larger intake valves AND higher CFM carb. How many fellas you suppose tried to duplicate an HO Chevy by just installing the bigger carb? And all the exhaust work in the world won't help if there's a "restriction" on the intake valve side. Seat-of-the-pants observation on the 401 "nailhead"--indeed top end was limited, and now that mystery is solved with the intake valve design information. Great torque off the line, but I could always feel when I hit that "flat spot" at stoplight jamborees, toward the end of the first block down the street before the first shift. On the "Y" block I only have personal experience with the 292 in my boat, with dual side-draft carbs. It works fine, but who knows how it would perform in a car? I have to think the Ford engineers DID know why they were shrouding the intake valves--higher air/fuel mixture velocity in the cylinder. Interesting, though, that flow testing was still such an arcane business in those days, even at the factory. Wasn't NASCAR a great place when they could add a supercharger to a stock engine (presumably after "homologation") to "even things out?" Nothing like that would happen today. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

I'm all for it... now where's that thread? It could start here, as long as they are Packard "Firsts" such as first president, first head of styling, first chief engineer, etc. Let the historians have a field day! <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Also of particular note: did Packard have "firsts" in the industry in particular positions of authority? In other words, did they "invent" pieces of the automotive corporate structure?

I'm learnin interesting new things about my old '65 Electra that I never knew while I had it, including the fact that it had a "switch-pitch" transmission and a somewhat radical cam. The cam makes sense now, because I agonized over trying to get that car to idle as smoothly as some other V8s I had known. I always thought that initial timing advance was the trouble, but now I'm pretty sure it just had a slight rumpty-rump from the cam. Thanks for the insights!. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

In my experience the THM400 was THE transmission to beat. Had one in my '65 Electra, and if that was the first year for the "400" it was great right out of the box. I absolutely thrashed that trans in that big heavy car and it would not die. I didn't even know you were supposed to change the fluid and filter once in a while--it was never serviced under my watch during the car's second hundred thousand miles. It retired undefeated with about 125,000 on the clock.

Adam, Just wanted to chime in here and tell you again what nice work you do! I think your phone is going to be ringing, if it isn't already. Also, since you're coming all the way up to little ol' Rochester MN, I'd be some kind of an a$$ if I didn't take the short drive down there to see you and the car--and Thriller and whoever else is going, too. Please shoot me an e-mail on how we might connect (if you have a second or two away from your LeSabre).

I meant that as a general "enough." Why not start a thread on "Great Packard People" and debate their greatness and longevity... or just celebrate their accomplishments! <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Some of these may be Buick-related! Buick built radial aircraft engines used in WWII bombers.

Watch "Christine" and enjoy some vicarious revenge. At least Arnie got his way! I wonder if Stephen King's father was a member of "that club" too? <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">they told me I could not title it</div></div>I don't think they can tell you that. If they take your money, it's your car, and if you can get the State DMV to write you a new title for it, you've got a licensable car. This may not be possible in all cases, but I'm reminded of the old adage: "Everything's negotiable."

If the valence is a "flexible" or plastic piece, I don't think there's much hope of an improvement. This is "anecdotal" evidence, but the Ford dealership bodyshop that painted a new rear bumper after a repair on my rear-ended T-Bird told me flat-out that the "flex" additive that they put in the bodyshop's paint--even at a dealership--does NOT provide the same flexibility as a factory paint job... and that no shop can duplicate the OEM painting process for these parts. The paint on a repaired flexible piece is always more brittle and prone to cracking and chipping. An impact that would normally not damage the OEM paint will often damage the repair paint. I think they may have been telling the truth here, for a change. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Enough already. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

bernardi, The mileage drop with ethanol will depend on the percentage of alcohol in the blend. Typical "oxygenated" (ethanol-added) gasoline runs about 10% alcohol content, and the mileage drops about in that 5-10% range. With E-85, 85% ethanol blend, mileage will drop quite a bit more... I think how much depends a lot on how well the engine is tuned specifically for the blend, but as mentioned you can get a rough estimate by comparing BTUs per gallon of whatever stuff you're trying to burn. Loyd, The popular theory for what happened to your valves running unleaded fuel (regardless of alcohol content) is that lead deposites acted as a "cushion" between valves and seats, and dissipated heat better. Thus, hardened seats became just about universal in, I believe, around 1975. Spark knock or "detonation" would have punished the pistons more, I believe but (?) not sure. A good higher octane rating can be achieved without adding ethanol. There is "clear" ethanol-free gasoline available locally for small engines, motorcycles, and specialty vehicles (like old cars) and it usually runs 92+ octane--which I DON'T like, because most lower compression engines, like lawn mowers, old cars and classic boats (my '61 runabout) don't need and actually suffer from "high-test" fuel--carbon deposits from the slower-burning characteristics are common. The rule of thumb is, use the LOWEST octane rating that does not cause spark knock--and lower octane fuels are ALSO said to have more BTU's per gallon, all other factors such as additives being equal. Meaning you'll probably get slightly better mileage by going with the lowest octane that works, besides paying less to start with. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> I think you're right on the money when you said 10% ethanol wasn't enough to start to act on "rubber" components in your '71. Even though it's an old car, chances are there was far less real rubber (if any) in the fuel system than in "vintage" cars. It would be interesting to know what the attrition rate was over the years of natural rubber fuel system components, if anyone here can give an estimate. Finally, the problem with fuel filters is due to the cleaning properties of the ethanol in the fuel. Basically, it eats out rust and contaminants (NOT, to my knowledge, metal) and you get to slowly clean the system, one filter at a time. Not very efficient, which is why it's a great idea to get the gas tank of any older vehicle you acquire cleaned, and the steel lines flushed, first thing. On the water-absorption qualities of alcohol... remember Heet and other such "gas-line anti-freeze" products? ALCOHOL! I really don't understand where there is a complaint about alcohol somehow getting water INTO your fuel--it gets it out. Up here in the northland, we could all stop buying that stupid anti-freeze in the winter (although some still do!) because the "active ingredient" of the additive has already been put in the gas. The real culprit for gas tank rot is moisture that condenses inside the tank and clings to the top of the tank. especially if a car is stored for long periods with a partially-full tank. If you regularly fill with an ethanol blended fuel, the alcohol will absorb the water that has either dripped into the gas or is still clinging to the top of the tank. Ever notice how old-car tanks always rust worst on the top, rather than the bottom? Yes, somebody stored the car and didn't fill the tank. Always fill it, especially for winter storage in a cold climate (and when would you usually store it?) As temps rise and fall over the winter, condensation takes off and that foul top-rust gets started. Kev, You mentioned alcohol's effects on emission control systems--it's generally not an issue and probably helps their performance in most cases. Speaking to your first question, retro-fitting for ethanol blends, anything from 20% to E-85 to pure alcohol has probably been done. There are specialty outfits that make the carbs and FI systems, do the tuning, and the works--usually on later-model vehicles, of course. It isn't a do-it-yourself project that I would think anyone would tackle unless they had a lot of time to kill tinkering, and on a vintage vehicle it would all have to be reversible or... someone here would take great offense! The new "flex-fuel" vehicles coming out are very sophisticated, with systems that sense the fuel blend and adjust themselves accordingly. Are all these fuel blends a "fad" or a scam or what? Only time will tell for sure. I do know that we've been using "oxygenated" fuel with 10% ethanol in Minnesota for many years in the winter, and all year round for the past couple of years. There seem to be about as many advantages as disadvantages. Air quality, especially in winter, has improved, and it's been pretty well verified that a good portion of the reductions in specific car-exhaust related pollutants is traceable to oxygenated fuel. (In very cold weather, which we have a lot of, there is something called a "temperature inversion" which basically locks in many air pollutants over major cities. Kind of our own little private greenhouse, only it's more like an outhouse.) Also on the upside, we seem to get a bit of a cushion on gas price spikes when crude oil goes up. I think that's partly because a lot of our crude comes from Canada (bless 'em) and not the Persian Gulf, but think about it--if 10% of the fuel your're buying does NOT come from crude oil, it can hold the price down--IF the suppliers and retailers are being fair. I do know we're not paying anywhere near what the coasts do for gasoline. Never, ever topped $3.00. It's settled in at around $2.65 to $2.80, even since the usual Memorial Day increase. There seem to be very few complaints about any ill effects to automobile operation--and believe me, there would be complaints! When it's 30 below and your car won't start, if you can blame the gas, you will. Letters to the editor would be pouring in. That's one area at least where I think we have a major benefit. The ethanol really seems to have made "gas-line freeze" a thing of the past. I really have no complaints except I think it sometimes exacerbates fuel percolation (vapor lock) in summer. Mileage-wise, it's pretty much a wash, with the decrease most noticeable in winter, but when it's below zero nothing gets very good mileage. The farmers are happy, too, with ethanol plants buying up grain all over the state. That's a good thing, because if there's one thing you don't want to deal with, it's an unhappy farmer.

I would think putting the thermometer in the coolant itself would be the only accurate way, BUT wouldn't you run an awful risk taking off the cap? Or is there an expansion tank? Even so, the coolant in the expansion tank would have already dropped in temperature, would it not? How do you do this, JT? Four sentences, four question marks--sorry. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />