55PackardGuy

... and the Gleason name lives on! Interesting that it was a female engineer who was so instrumental in what was a man's field (engineering) in a man's industry-- automobiles. The historical discussion of various engineering topics is what helps make a "firsts" list something more than an exercise in boosterism or an endless rehashing of minutiae. And the list itself sort of represents "living history" as legitimate new information is brought to light. In spite of all the previous hoopla about who cut what gears for whom, Packard's reason for touting the "hypoid" differential was not just about quieter gears, but almost more important, it was about decreased center of gravity facilitated by the lower driveshaft, allowing designers to decrease body height without interfering with the driveshaft. It was all about <span style="font-style: italic">sound practical application of an engineering feature</span> that directly benefited the motoring public. That's what Packard engineers often accomplished, and why they were respected in the industry-- even if it seems they "don't get no respect" from some quarters now! By the way, what exactly would I not want to hear that Mr. Gleason said? And how exactly was Mr. Gleason related to Kate Gleason, if at all?

Well mlander, I think your friends at Delco should probably credit somebody else for their accomplishments too. Nothing is created in a vacuum, except maybe... well, no, I won't say that. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Well heck, that's pretty good. But I don't know anywhere on France that the speed limit's over 30! No worries though, the cops always seem to go by looks--if it's old or a truck, they assume it's going slow. How do you mean "loose" valves? Do you get clatter? The valve lash might be a little loose (it shouldn't be too tight though, they say), or maybe the springs have gotten weak. Did you have that one torn down? I can't remember. Anyway, you couldn't have picked a better car to do a valve job on... sweet and simple (but don't look at me to do it myself--I draw the line at things like water pumps and stuff). That's a nice high gear ratio and big tires, so RPM should not be too high... the same engine was huffing along with 4:1+ and P205 15 sized tires in the 40's! 50 mph was screaming right along with that setup.

Jack, Good luck on the search. Jack H specifically mentioned running #50 in NASCAR events to me. However, I think NASCAR also sanctions some regional events as well as the "big" nationals, correct? In the '50s it might have been quite different... back when people would strip their own tires off their cars in the parking lot if their favorite driver ran short (true story). "Use mah tahrs, Cooter." <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

From Ivan Saxton over on AACA General: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What I find interesting in this sort of discussion [of Packard Firsts] is the gradual clarification through the contribution of people's references and personal experiences.</div></div> That pretty much sums up what I had hoped to be the spirit of this Packard Firsts thread. References, personal experiences, clarification, and above all, interesting discussion. Unfortunately, it seems "any excuse for a war" is the watchword for a few on the Packard forum. Not all, I'm sure, as the number of "views" to this thread would seem to attest. I think far too many of the viewers choose not to post their thoughts here because of those few who, in an attempt to dominate or protect their egos, insist that everything said is a personal affront to their expertise and deserving of a confrontational reply. A sad state of affairs. In the interest of inclusion, maybe it would be worthwhile to reiterate some of the guidelines that I originally thought would be helpful in discussing the list of "Packard Firsts." A portion of my reply to Ivan covers most of it: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think that most U.S. manufacturers (and probably others in the world) claimed to be "first" with an item when they actually offered it on their regular production runs before the competition did. The major manufacturers probably were pretty well aware of what their competitors were doing, and touted what they were doing different or what was "new" on their cars and not offered elsewhere to the general public. This, I think, is the main source of lists of "firsts" attributed to any particular marque. Often, especially in early years, this meant "first in the U.S." for companies in this country, although they didn't always make that distinction. Also in early years, they might have qualified it as "first among major manufacturers" because they often couldn't know what somebody else had just made in a one-off or limited production run of cars. So, it's not always black and white, and as you say, it leads to "interesting discussion and gradual clarification," exactly the reasons I started the "Packard Firsts" thread. Unfortunately, it sometimes results in "vehement arguments and stubborn oneupmanship" amongst some individuals. One thing that might help, and I really tried to do this early on in the discussion of "Packard Firsts," is to set some reasonable criteria for making the claim of "first." Qualifiers such as: "First application in a production vehicle" "First offered as standard equipment" "First in U.S." "First patent" "First among major manufacturers" Etc. etc. This is probably best done by qualifying individual items on the list as they fit certain criteria. The main thing is that they identify the manufacturer as forward-looking and innovative in their industry, being first to market with many practical advancements, some of which become "industry standard" in short order. Without some kind of qualifying criteria, discussion of a list such as this can turn into a search for minutiae and an interminable back-and-forth about what, exactly, the item is. For instance: What is a rumble seat? became one such argument. What is a station wagon (for Pete's sake) became another. What constitutes a full torsion bar suspension--this last finally had to be described as a "fully interconnected 4-wheel torsion bar suspension" to qualify to meet the standards of the "review board" of the Packard Firsts list. But, it's good to clarify terms and discuss the significance and true precedence of a technological advance. Even though the topic of "who did it first" lends itself to controversy, it should still be possible to discuss these things as items of interest and an opportunity for all to learn something about automobiles.</div></div> So, how about it? Anybody up for "interesting discussion and gradual clarification?" And what about considering some of the finer points, such as the fact that when Packard introduced the items on the list, they were generally considered, at least among the U.S. buying public (and Packard's competitors!), unique and inventive. And they were not simply offered in special-interest or custom-built (or very limited production) automobiles, but in the regular Packard production run, as amenities and engineering advances that came to be expected by the motoring public as a matter of course--from Packard first, and later from other manufacturers who often followed suit.

Thanks Brian, I needed to have you point that out. Since you've decided once again to speak for John, I'm wondering what kind of response you feel he should expect, given the fact that he continues to take a confrontational approach to every item he brings up, as though the whole idea of this list is a challenge and affront to him personally. I don't know, maybe he should find another marque of automobile that he actually thinks deserves respect, and that he would like to say more positive things about. Marmon comes to mind. As you both should know by now, I've repeated it often enough, the list was originally posted for discussion and improvement, not "controversy." It was fully acknowledged from the start that there were bound to be items that would be changed and deleted through, one hoped, civil discussion. The list isn't about somebody trying to "put something over" on anyone, and the discussion is not about assuaging anyone's ego, it's about celebrating the Packard marque. Why aren't you fellows, especially John--but you seem to come as a package deal--getting adamant about adding something to the list???? Or even, possibly, defending something? It's all about picking at every perceived or real fault, and saying "gotcha!" to someone. In John's case, I suspect that "someone" probably works at PAC. Or maybe it's just me--how dare I suggest anything about Packard that one of you didn't come up with first! My deepest apologies for presuming that I have anything costructive to say. John, I can see where fans of other car makes would go out of their way to nitpick every entry to find a possible precedence by the xyz car company from Nambia, and to avoid verifying any items or adding anything to the list like the plague, but you are supposedly a Packard "enthusiast." What gives? Is it more important to look like an "expert" and try to "win" a debate than to actually write something constructive or enlightening about Packard's achievements? That, after all, is what this thread is supposed to be about... Packard's achievements, not yours. OK, just for fun, here's an item for you... I won't even call it a "first" (far be it from me to upset anyone's delicate equilibrium) but Packard DID have a "tilt" steering column in... 1900. And I'm not going to cite my source--so there.

Ivan, Thanks for the informative post. Personal experience counts for a lot, even though it doesn't always get into books, many a hands-on enthusiast can report: "I saw it." Also, people who worked in dealerships often post about experiences that can't always be verified elsewhere, even in factory literature, and I bet they've often got the correct information. I think that most U.S. manufacturers (and probably others in the world) claimed to be "first" with an item when they actually offered it on their regular production runs before the competition did. The major manufacturers probably were pretty well aware of what their competitors were doing, and touted what they were doing different or what was "new" on their cars and not offered elsewhere to the general public. This, I think, is the main source of lists of "firsts" attributed to any particular marque. Often, especially in early years, this meant "first in the U.S." for companies in this country, although they didn't always make that distinction. Also in early years, they might have qualified it as "first among major manufacturers" because they often couldn't know what somebody else had just made in a one-off or limited production run of cars. So, it's not always black and white, and as you say, it leads to "interesting discussion and gradual clarification," <span style="font-style: italic">exactly</span> the reasons I started the "Packard Firsts" thread. Unfortunately, it sometimes results in "vehement arguments and stubborn oneupmanship" amongst some individuals. One thing that might help, and I really tried to do this early on in the discussion of "Packard Firsts," is to set some reasonable criteria for making the claim of "first." Qualifiers such as: "First application in a production vehicle" "First offered as standard equipment" "First in U.S." "First patent" "First among major manufacturers" Etc. etc. This is probably best done by qualifying individual items on the list as they fit certain criteria. The main thing is that they identify the manufacturer as forward-looking and innovative in their industry, being first to market with many practical advancements, some of which become "industry standard" in short order. Without some kind of qualifying criteria, discussion of a list such as this can turn into a search for minutiae and an interminable back-and-forth about what, exactly, the item is. For instance: What is a rumble seat? became one such argument. What is a station wagon (for Pete's sake) became another. What constitutes a full torsion bar suspension--this last finally had to be described as a "fully interconnected 4-wheel torsion bar suspension" to qualify to meet the standards of the "review board" of the Packard Firsts list. But, it's good to clarify terms and discuss the significance and true precedence of a technological advance. Even though the topic of "who did it first" lends itself to controversy, it should still be possible to discuss these things as items of interest and an opportunity for all to learn something about automobiles. Thanks for your input. Hope to continue this discussion over on the Packard forum. If you like, I can ask Mr. Burgess to post your last response over there. I think it would contribute a lot to a thoughtful interchange.

BTW, in case you really need a list that didn't come from PAC, try this one on for size... (Reproduced by permission from Packards International) <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Alvan Macauley The Right Man-The Right Place-The Right Time Presentation For The Nomination of Alvan Macauley To The Automotive Hall Of Fame Contributors to this Presentation Packards International Motor Car Club?s Archives Literature Collection of Mr. Frederick R. Mauck Literature Collection of Dr. Robert Malstrom Mrs. Estelle Macauley Ritter- Granddaughter of Alvan Macauley A Memorial Biography-Alvan Macauley for the Macauley family Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Vinarcik Packards International Motor Car Club 302 French Street Santa Ana, California 92701 Phone Number: 714 633-3572 Material Prepared by Frederick R. Mauck Submitted for: Packards International Motor Car Club by: Frederick R. Mauck Member Board of Directors Packards International Motor Car Club Page 18: Below are but a few of the Packard Motor Car Firsts that occurred on Mr. Macauely?s ?watch?. (The ones I could remember at the writing of this presentation. Later you will see the aviation records.) SOME PACKARD FIRSTS First American twelve cylinder engine (1915) First aluminum pistoned automobile engine (1915) First company to offer bumpers as standard equipment. (1924) First hypoid differential (1925) First hydraulic shock absorbers (1926) First backup lights (1927) First pressurized cooling system (1933) First oil temperature regulator (1933) First full flow oil filter (1933) First self-cleaning full flow oil filter (1934) First to locate hand brake on left of driver (1915) First to use steering wheel instead of tiller handle. First power hydraulic brakes (1936) First aluminum crankcase. First automobile air conditioning (1939) First sealed beam headlights (1939) First padded dash (1939) First pleated upholstery (1939) First automatic windows (1940) First all steel station wagon (1948) First thermostatic control of water circulation in a motorcar. First to hook up the accelerator pedal and hand throttle. First to patent automobile wheels interchangeable at hub. First to offer ribbed jacket water-cooled cylinders. First to obtain patent on radiator with top and bottom reservoirs with tubes. First central automatic chassis lubricator system. First in America to use ?trunnion block? which added to driving safety. First ?ride control? - a mechanism for controlling shock absorber activity. First package compartment in instrument panel. First sun visors. First constant action vacuum (pump aided) windshield wipers. First to use lateral stabilizer. First to use built-in under-fender cooling tunnels. First electrically controlled overdrive. First automatic radiator shutters as standard equipment. First to include front and rear bumpers as standard. First to use balloon tires as standard. Phillips screw.</div></div> Now, if I'm understanding correctly, you're telling me PI is ALL WRONG too? They did present this officially to the Automotive Hall of Fame. I would say, in comparison, the list in its most recent form on this thread is parsimonious to a fault.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i am not done with the Packards First yet.</div></div> You know what puzzles me John, is why you seem so bent out of shape about this... and particularly why you seem NEVER to be able to come up with anything, out of all your wonderful "sources," that would ADD anything to a list that simply attempts to celebrate the achievements of the Packard marque? Oh yeah, now I remember, the original list (a mere starting point, vastly changed since, which came with absolutely no endorsement from me) originally appeared on (shudder) the PAC website. So, you take it upon yourself, because you have a personal beef with PAC and certain people at PAC, to do nothing here but rant and pontificate about how your superior intelligence will pick holes in anybody else's ideas on what to include in a list of bonafide Packard innovations. It seems strictly personal and all about winning some kind of contest. Well, OK John, you're better and smarter and wiser than anybody, and Packard didn't come up with anything. Here's a new list for you: "Packard Firsts" Packard first built cars some time in the 1890s, at least it's rumored that they did. All else is myth and fable. John S. says so, and he's an automotive historian with a great big library and he should know. The end. I'm sure you can find something wrong with that list, too. Have fun!!! <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Here's the back Comment from Jack H: "I metal flaked the red and blue. Class huh? My partner & I had a body shop so was no big deal."

Hm, interesting. I know Jack had a '56 entered at Darlington, but not sure if it started the race. Something about the T/L suspension had the good ol' boys confused. They even called the local Packard dealer to find out if it was really "stock!" Jack also raced his '55 Panama in NASCAR events. Did you happen to see a picture of ol' number 50? I'll Attach pics. This is a real bona-fide '55 Packard V8 stock car! (It doesn't have T/L though). Also, note the tow car in front of the Panama--a '55 400, no less. That's goin' racin' in style, eh?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Remember it is very difficult to make a practical automatic advance and retard system for a magneto.</div></div> Maybe that's why the company that did it first <span style="font-style: italic">in a production car</span> deserves some credit. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As an aside just who invented the vacuum advance system? Same goes for the centrifugal advance.</div></div> Glad you asked: "The [1902 Packard] Model G engine ... was described in <span style="font-style: italic">The Horseless Age</span> as 'a horizontal, opposed double cylinder of 24 horse power ... Each cylinder of the engine has a separate carburetor, and the timing of the spark is done by a centrifugal governor, which revolves with the cam shaft and shifts the two ignition cams.'" -Packard, A History of the Motor Car and the Company, page 60. The original Packard automatic spark advance was a centrifugal system. mlander, When you start re-defining terms to suit, you can negate just about any engineering innovation as something that "has little merit as it was a dead end system for cars" or that another, favored manufacturer "deserves the credit" because "all the previous ones were impractical or just not appropriate in view of other more needed advances." OK, so using your logic I'll say Delco doesn't deserve ANY credit for their spark advance system because "it's just not appropriate in view of the needed advances" of electronic ignition. You can call almost anything "a dead end system" using your logic. BTW, if you want to malign a group of automotive engineers, I'd suggest you pick a safer target than Packard, which was widely recognized throughout its history as an industry leader--by their competitors as well as the engineering community at large.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hey Guy, which posts do you want me to duplicate in the Packard Forum? Wayne</div></div> Well, things seem to be backing up into the General forum from over at Packard, now, so I don't know. Do whatever you think is best! <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> My hope (and yours, too, I think since you started the Packard Firsts??? thread over here on AACA General!) is to get input from more AACA members, but I'd like to direct the discussion over to the Packard forum so the latest update of the list is being used as a reference. The whole thing comes down to getting as many (informed) voices heard as possible, yet keeping the list upkeep simple. It might be easier for you to compare and contrast the postings from both threads, and add what hasn't been yet been posted over on the Packard Firsts (no question-marks) thread. Does your Administrator pass make this any easier than having others decide what they'd like to move and "copy/paste" them over there as new posts?

I'm just up 35W from you--give me a shout out and drive the '52 up some time!--might be better to take Lyndale, though. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Jack, Yeah, I brought up the "recollection" about Yunick and the Packard V8 racing. It might not have even been a NASCAR event he was talking about--my attention of course went to the fact that he mentioned racing a V8 Packard. I might be able to find the article if anyone has a stack of old Circle Track magazines from the last half of the 1980's when I was getting it at work. What I'd really like to know is if your racing research turned up <span style="font-weight: bold">Jack Harlin</span> as a driver?

mlander, Can I persuade you to post these comments over on the Packard Forum in the "Packard Firsts" thread there? You'll also find the updated list of "trivia" that Packard engineered there, and also a few so-called Packard "enthusiasts" who seem to be as bent on negating or minimizing Packard engineering achievements as you are. Strange, but true...

There were some questions and comments posted on the AACA General thread about hydraulic shocks as well. I'll try to alert that person to post here as well. Ivan, I still can't quite understand the actual model of the vehicle you're referring to that had the automatic spark advance in 1896. But I'm sure John will chime in and straighten me out, or at least quote something out of a book without citing the source... come on John, I know you're always pressed for time, unlike all the other posters on this board who've got all day, but share a little background info, OK? Since you admit to being one of only two people posting here who have a handle on automotive history, it's only right.

I like the way you're painting the engine from the bottom up. Still has that great crusty "period" look, but not raggedy, so to speak. What's the history on this car? Never seen anything like it, but then I'm not a big pre-War guy (especially pre "Great War!"). Take care. P.S. Don't show the hair-raising "child seat" pic to the officials! Great shot, BTW. A ride-along mechanic, just like in the good old days (I mean you as mechanic, of course--you <span style="font-style: italic">are</span> in that seat, correct?)

Any place short of the freeway you could go for your trials? Like a good 2-lane highway without much traffic and a 55 mph speed limit? That would be my preference. Freeways are murder for trial runs, IMO. Too fast, too much traffic, too restricted (roadside repairs are a b*tch, and you have to get an "official" tow if you can't get it going). Glad you're getting it up to speed, though, wherever you go! Do you have some recent pics to share?

Ivan, I don't see anything heretical there, just some new information. The automatic spark advance "first" hasn't been questioned that I can remember. Perhaps the listing will have to be revised to "first in the U.S." However, the listing in Automobile Engineering "refers to a car," seeming to indicate it might not have been a production car. Although we've been real sticklers about what appears on the list, most of the discussion has been limited to production cars. The Packard spark advance was reportedly used first in 1899, perhaps prior to a real "model year" as there was a lot of experimentation going on. But, 1900 was a true model year, and the system was described in one news release for U.S. automotive publications for that year as follows: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"The engine [of the 1900 Packard Model B] is of the horizontal, single cylinder, four-cycle type, with a high compression for full load and throttling controls. By an automatic device the lead of the ignition, which is of the jump spark type, is shifted to correspond to any speed at which the engine may be running."*</div></div> That's one reference, and perhaps there are others who would like to contribute information. As always, it gets a little murky considering things like "first application" versus "first use in a production car" versus "first patent" etc. on technical advancements taking place over 100 years ago. Regarding the "aluminum piston," after much debate that was excised quite some time ago and doesn't appear on the most recent list shown above. A pity, because the debut of the "alloy piston" by Packard was in the Twin Six, such as the one you are restoring. However, at least one quite far-reaching list, which includes many international designs, of "Automotive Technical Firsts" gives Packard (out of only 3 items listed as "firsts" for Packard)... the "alloy piston!" The list of "Automotive Technical Firsts" at http://www.autocluster.com/id40.htm was not compiled by Packard people, and yet includes the following Packard "firsts": <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1916 Packard sells first production car with a V12 engine, the Twin Six. Packard Twin Six (V12) model is first American car to have alloy pistons. 1925 Packard introduces hypoid rear axles.</div></div> Note that they say Packard SELLS the first production car with a V12 engine, and that the Twin Six is the first AMERICAN car to have alloy pistons. BUT, since there was another V12 equipped car unearthed here on the forum that was supposedly built (a matter of months) before the Twin Six rolled off the line, the Packard V12 was taken off the list of "firsts." Picky Packard People, eh? I swear, they're harder on Packards here on this forum--at least in this thread--than they are on other makes. Can't imagine why... And, note the term "alloy" as opposed to "aluminum" is used in the "Automotive Technical Firsts" list. Not quite sure how to read that... and it's such a complex issue that, what the heck, leave it off the list. So, I don't know for sure about automatic spark advance, Ivan. Usually, I have to leave the final decisions up to the "Board of Historical Directors" here on the Packard forum. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Seriously, I do look for some consensus, and try to err on the conservative side... that's why the list has shrunk by about half from the original posted at the beginning of the thread. *From Packard, A History of the Motor Car and the Company, edited by Beverly Rae Kimes, Published by Automobile Quarterly, 1978, pg 37

Thanks for the info. Just thought I'd ask in the interests of "leave no stone unturned." Happened to read about it in an auto advice column recently and it mentioned the pickup pulling air into the system. Funny how these new "high-tech" engines miss a basic like that. But they're built so tight, I suppose lots of interesting new engineering problems are cropping up around oiling and venting issues.

O man, but that's just kowtowing to Madison Avenue, isn't it? If it comes down to just buying things that have a good ol' American name on them, they'll have a field day leading us around by the nose. Oh wait, they already do that--with "badge engineering" and supposedly "Amercan" cars with over half the "content" from outside the country. Take a look at Toyota's pickup names, and you get an idea how well this works-- Tacoma, Tundra-- I'm waiting for the new Toyota Texan! <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

HA! Who's an expert? Not me, especially if you ask a few of the fellas over on the Packard forum--I might as well be Sergeant Schulz for all they care. I know NOTHING! As for being able to afford one, my Dad bought the '55 Clipper Custom in the fall of the year, at a big sell-off lot, not from a dealer. I believe he paid about $2000 for it, which was a somewhat pricey car back then, but I believe a new Chevy with all the bells and whistles could've been close to that. We was poor people, but by golly we had a Packard. (Which didn't really mean anything in 1955, as Cadillac had stolen all the panache in most people's minds.) Feel free to post your thoughts over on the Packard forum on the "Packard Firsts" thread (minus ???marks)--that goes for anybody else with a hankerin' to take issue with those uppity luxury car "experts."

Hey Wayne, Check out the last update on the "Packard Firsts" thread over on the Packard forum. I made some final tweaks and "ran it up the flagpole" amongst the Packard afitchianadoos, and while nobody saluted nobody complained either. Maybe it's pretty close to kosher. Suffice it to say, it's quite a bit shorter, but still very impressive. Others, feel free to chime in with questions, comments, complaints (please no threats). I'd rather not re-post the list here, because keeping track of feedback on two threads at once got to be more work than I care for (which is not much, I know, but call lazy if you want, just don't call me late for dinner nyuk-nyuk-nyuk). There's really only one addition since the last posting here (and just about anything that received a peep of a complaint was taken out). The new entry is... and from no less an authority than Wikipedia... The aluminum automatic transmission case in 1956. Anyone got an earlier claim for that?

Craig, Glad to see this thread and project getting some more action. Sounds like the Olds conversion will certainly eliminate the oil pump as a source of Packard V8 "oiling problems." Question: has anyone done an oil drain-back test on the Packard V8? Reason I ask is, slow drain-back has been one major cause of aeration and "sludge buildup" (coagulated foam) in newer engines. No matter the volume pumped and circulated, if the oil doesn't get back in the pan fast enough, the pump "sucks air" and aeration/foam/sludge result. Just a thought... Easy drain-back check--stop the engine after full warmup at speed (pull over first!) and check the dipstick immediately. See how low the oil registers. Then, check again, see how long it takes to come back up to "full." There are undoubtedly more sophisticated tests, too--but I only know basic--and cheap. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />