Rusty_OToole

Some English cars had them in the late fifties, possibly into the early sixties. MG had a pull handle connected to a cable, that controlled a heavy duty switch wired directly between the battery and starter. No solenoid.

The front fender is considerably longer on a New Yorker, at least 6 inches longer. The New Yorker has a wheelbase of 131" Vs 125 for the Windsor. All the extra length is in front of the windshield. The longer hood is to house the longer straight eight engine. I suggest you ask the seller to measure the length of the fender then measure your old one. Although the difference should be plain from a photo, it is that marked.

If you have an offer, an acceptance, and a consideration you have a contract. Could be verbal or in writing. A verbal contract can be enforced if you have proof, either both parties agree what was said or you have witnesses. In fact at an auction sale if the auctioneer says "$10,000" and you wave your hand and he says "Sold" that is a contract. He doesn't have to let you out of it if he doesn't want to although it can be hard to enforce. That is why they have you register. Be careful of your number, if you leave early and throw the card away someone could pick it up and buy stuff in your name.

As it is your car you can do as you please. I am thinking of stone guards I have seen pictures of, from car shows of the early thirties, showing fanciful designs of lightning bolts, circles, and V shapes worked into the design. I know this was quite a few years after your car was made and would not be suitable in your case. The point is, the stone guard was an accessory made by various firms, who is to say they never made one on the bias?

There was a design change at some point. The older models used nuts and bolts, the newer ones had threaded holes in the crankshaft flange. The main problem is that they moved the flange closer to the engine when they did this. The bellhousing was also shortened. And the position of the starter changed. The later model does not have room behind the flange for the nuts. You will need to measure all these things and figure out how to fit them together. You should not need to thread the holes. Use fine thread grade8 bolts and be sure the shoulder of the bolt goes all the way through, so the threaded part is not taking the shear. You will need to get longer bolts and cut off part of the threaded end to get them to fit.

It was just a suggestion. If the rad is sound, have you tried having it cleaned by a rad shop? Or even cleaning it with CLR?

Fluid Drive needs a special trans with long input shaft. Some use a 3 speed manual trans, some use an M6 self shifting 4 speed. Can be changed to a manual 3 speed if you have trans, clutch, bellhousing, flywheel etc. All the 3 speed stuff bolts on. By the way the 3 speed fluid drive trans is not rare, it was standard equipment on deluxe Dodges and cheap DeSotos and Chryslers for years.

A good rad shop should be able to recore it. Last one I had done was $300 and it's like a new rad.

The F head design had a lot to offer. It was used by such respected makers as Harley Davidson, Hudson, Rolls Royce, Rover and Jeep. But somehow it never caught on.

"But if you want to make horsepower the flathead has major vises, inferior combustion chamber, and the inability to breathe due to small valve size and restrictive port design." It was the other way around. When the long stroke, small bore engine was in vogue it was the OHV engines that had small valves and restrictive breathing. Flatheads had the advantage that the valve chamber being beside the cylinder, could be wider than the cylinder with larger valves and more room around them for air flow. I think you will agree the ports can be as large and well shaped on either engine, right up to the valve seats. The valves on the flathead can be larger and with more room around them. The only breathing restriction is the passage between the combustion chamber and cylinder. This is where the compression ratio comes in. The more you lower the head, the more compression but the more restricted this passage becomes. If you go over about 7.5:1 you lose more in breathing than you gain in compression. Hudson and Packard overcame this to a certain extent by tipping the valves toward the cylinder and by some creative head design. But they still hit their limit at 8.7:1. The new school of large bore, short stroke, OHV engines did not have these restrictions and of course, had a lot more scope for development. But I think it is significant that the OHV advantage was very small as long as gas was below 80 octane and car makers were obliged to limit their compression to under 8:1. I already gave the example of the 1949 Lincoln V8, long stroke flathead, 337 cu in 154 HP vs Cadillac, short stroke OHV V8, 331 cu in 160 HP. Note that the "superior" OHV only develops 6 more HP than the "inferior" flathead. But both have a compression ratio of 7.5:1. Meanwhile the 1951 Chrysler had the same bore and stroke as the Cadillac, the same compression ratio, but developed 180HP thanks to its hemi head design. This was a significant increase but at what a cost in money, complexity, and weight. Chrysler eventually abandoned the hemi head design because it just wasn't worth it unless you were building a racing engine. Only after 1951 did the OHV engines forge ahead as better gas allowed higher compression.

There wasn't any "Ricardo" engine as such, except for a Triumph motorcycle of 1921 and 22. They sold a bike with a "Ricardo" head and advertised it as such. Harry Ricardo was a researcher who developed new engines and cylinder heads for customers, they could be for cars, trucks, motorcycles, or whatever. In the thirties he did a lot of work on diesel engines. If you can find a Dykes Encyclopedia or other technical automotive book from the early twenties you may find some discussion of the Ricardo head. It was adopted by all flathead engines eventually but usually without attribution. Here is a link to a page from a 1927 Dykes giving details of the Ricardo head. Scroll down to see the actual page. http://sites.google.com/site/rockislandg2/head-bolt-tensioning-pattern There were actually different "Ricardo heads" for different applications. The Triumph mentioned above had an OHV engine and of course, there were different designs for diesels. But it was the flathead design that was commonly known as a Ricardo head in the US. The Waukesha engine company made a "Ricardo head" in 1923 that was sold as such, making different ones for Model T Fords, Dodges, and other cars and trucks.

Exactly. You nailed it. In 1957, a high compression engine would develop more power than a 1951, low compression engine. That is why the flathead fell by the wayside. In 1947, the future was far from clear. Some very smart engineers and auto company executives thought the flathead was preferable to the OHV . Lincoln, Packard and Hudson were all planning new flathead engines at this time. What they did not know was that their plans would be thrown into disarray by the introduction of high test leaded gas of a type formerly used only in aircraft. In 1937, or 1927, the flathead had it over the OHV engine, unless the OHV also had overhead cams and was specifically designed as a performance or racing engine. Even then, the advantage was small. When we are talking about ordinary cars that normal people would buy, the flathead was better. Coming from California I am surprised you didn't know this. The Ford flathead V8 was the hot rod king for 20 years. As for conservative motorists buying Cadillac over Packard you are also correct. I was trying to explain that in the 1945 to 1954 period Packard pursued a certain sales and marketing strategy that did not work out. Part of the strategy may have been the flathead straight eight engine which they pioneered in 1923 and which was strongly associated with the Packard brand. When they started it looked like a good idea but public taste turned out to be more radical than they expected and engine developments progressed faster too. By the time they figured this out and revised their plans it was too late. My point is the flathead is not the hopeless klunker some people think it is. You do not have to put a Chev 350 in everything in order to make it drivable. The old flathead still has a lot to offer as a reliable power plant even if it is not going to win any races except against another flathead.

Nash used OHV engines only in their most expensive models, the cheaper ones were flathead powered. All Buicks were expensive cars in the upper medium price brackets. Why Chev stuck with the OHV engine I don't know. But Buick's short lived companion car, Marquette, had a flathead six. Cost was just one consideration. But once the Ricardo head came out, the OHV engine was awfully hard to justify. A few firms continued to make OHV engine if they had done so in the past, but most went to the flathead. Nash was head of Buick before he went out on his own and bought the Jeffrey company which he renamed Nash. So there was his connection to a successful OHV engine. I believe he started making Nash cars in 1917 so he had a reputation as an OHV engine supporter before the twenties. Then there were the ultra luxury models. Most used a flathead design. Cadillac made an OHV pushrod V12 and V16 but only because their narrow angle design did not leave room for side valves. In the end they changed to a wide angle flathead V16 to go with their flathead V8. Stutz and Duesenberg had overhead cams as well as overhead valves, these were the only OHV engines with a genuine performance advantage over a similar size flathead, but it was a small advantage, at what a cost!

Then there was the LeMans 24 hour race of 1928. First 2 finishers were Bentley and Stutz, both OHV cars with overhead cams and 4 valves per cylinder - out and out high performance or racing engines. But 3d and 4th places were taken by Chryslers with flathead six cylinder engines. They beat such highly rated sports cars as Alvis, Salmson, another Bentley and Lagonda. It is also fair to point out that the Bentley and Stutz had bigger engines, 4.4 and 4.9 liters compared to the 4.1 Chrysler. When you have the staying power to complete the 24 hours of LeMans, and finish in the money behind Bentley and Stutz, you have to have a hell of a motor. The conventional pushrod OHV engines weren't in it with the flathead and OHC engines. http://www.allpar.com/racing/lemans-1928.html

Buick, Chev and Nash all featured OHV engines before the Ricardo head came out. They must have felt they could not abandon them without losing face even if the flathead was a better engine. Look up the statistics some time of HP per cubic inch for different engine designs, you will see the Buick Chev and Nash had little or no advantage over flatheads of similar size. There was a very interesting comparison in 1927. In stock car racing, Stutz and Auburn had quite a battle that year. Both had straight eight engines, 288 cu in, the same bore and stroke, but one was an OHV design with overhead cam, the other a conventional flathead made by Lycoming. In top speed on Daytona Beach that year the Stutz beat the Auburn but by less than 2 MPH. The kicker is the Stutz was a $5000 car while the Auburn sold for less than $2000. Another interesting comparison is Pierce Arrow vs Duesenberg. Between 1932 and 35 Pierce Arrow set 24 hour speed records on the Bonneville Salt Flats using a stock chassis, and a Pierce flathead V12 engine. The first year the engine and body were stock, the second year they had a more streamlined body and a slightly hopped up engine, the third year the same car with a more modified engine. The next year Ab Jenkins beat the Pierce record with his Mormon Meteor, a car of similar size and overall appearance but with a double overhead cam, straight eight, supercharged Duesenberg engine and chassis. The following year he came back and beat his own record with the same car, now equipped with a Curtis Conqueror aircraft engine. Once again, the OHV proved slightly faster than the flathead but it took a supercharged OHC engine , and the Duesenberg was stretched to its limits to do it. Otherwise there would have been no point in changing to an aircraft engine the next year. So it can be seen that in those days an OHV pushrod engine gave no power advantage over a good flathead, and even an OHC engine had a very small advantage. Ford proved this for years. Their flathead V8 was the hottest car in its class, beating the flathead sixes and the OHV Chev as well. Ford was the hot car for a generation, from 1932 until the OHV V8s came out in the early fifties. Until the high octane leaded fuels came out in the early to mid fifties, the flathead was king. It is fair to say that the old champion was beaten by a new champion but it is not fair to say he never had anything on the ball.

You must have lived near Hollywood. As I said, Cadillacs were popular in some areas, but in more conservative parts they were considered too excessive and in bad taste. Unfortunately for Packard, too many buyers preferred Cadillacs, tailfins and all. As for the speed of the Hudson vs the cars you mention I assume you mean in a straight line. It would not surprise me if the Chrysler was faster as it had a considerably larger, more powerful engine. Cadillac maybe, Olds it would be a close race. Remember we are considering like to like, a 308 Cu In 140 HP Hudson to a 303 Cu In 135 HP Olds. The point is the flathead was not the klunker a lot of people imagine. In the late 40s and early fifties they could give comparable OHV cars a run for their money, and in the twenties and thirties they were superior. As you point out, by the mid fifties the contest was over and the OHV V8 was the champion. This should not erase the very real merits of the flatheads of the past.

As to why Packard stuck with the flathead for so long. Many experts felt the flathead had a lot to offer. As I mentioned earlier, Lincoln brought out an all new flathead V8 in 1949. Packard and Hudson both featured new flathead inline engines when others were going to OHV. The Packard was one of the most powerful cars of its time and only a few OHV V8s could out perform it. The Hudson was a stock car racing champion in the early fifties and handily beat all OHV competitors on the race track. Packard engineering was also busy in the late forties and early fifties with other things. They designed the only automatic transmission by an independent, the Ultramatic, introduced in 1949. An all new body in 1951. Power brakes, power steering, air conditioning and other power accessories were de rigeur for a luxury car. For whatever reason they decided to stick with the flathead straight eight they had pioneered in the early 20s, in a modernised form. At some point they changed their mind and began developing their own OHV V8. This debuted in 1955, the same year Pontiac, Chevrolet, and Plymouth introduced theirs. So they were hardly the last to market but they might as well have been, as their competitors had brought out theirs 3 to 6 years earlier. There was also the fact that Packard pursued a very conservative design philosophy in the late forties and early fifties. They went after the steady, conservative buyer in the upper middle and high price brackets. This was not a bad marketing strategy. Rambler did very well with similar strategy in the lower price market. Packard was offering buyers a genuine choice. At the time, Cadillac and Buick were building gaudy circus wagons more suited to Hollywood and Broadway than middle America. Packard was willing to concede Hollywood and Broadway if they could have the rest of the country. In the end, it turned out America wanted gaudy circus wagons with big tailfins mouth organ grilles and 3 tone paint jobs. But by the time they figured this out (1955-56) it was too late. By the way in my small town, the rich people would not be seen dead in a Cadillac. They drove Chrysler New Yorkers and Buicks. A successful realtor told me in all seriousness that if he bought a Cadillac it would hurt his business. He had just bought a new 1975 Buick Electra that cost as much as a Cadillac. I have heard similar stories from the southern US, from New England and from California. Cadillac owners were thought of as too slick, too brash, or making too much profit.To the old money people a Cadillac owner was a character from the wrong side of the tracks who hit it lucky. In those areas Packard should have done well. But in the fifties, the Brooks Brothers cut was out of fashion.

Before 1920 there a lot of different head designs, like the T head and F head as well as OHV and flathead. Flatheads offered simplicity, silence, reliability, low cost and ease of repair. If a valve spring broke which they often did in those days, the engine would continue to run and no engine damage resulted. But OHV engines could develop a little more power. Then in 1921 or 22 Harry Ricardo of England invented the Ricardo cylinder head. It brought the top of the flathead combustion chamber down tight to the piston. This had 3 advantages: It effectively reduced the size of the combustion chamber by half, it increased compression, and it caused a squish effect, squirting or swirling the combustion gasses. The overall result was higher compression, quicker more efficient combustion, and knock or ping was greatly reduced or eliminated. With the new head design the OHV engine became obsolete. No new OHV engines were designed after the Ricardo head came out. The only exceptions were from firms that had nailed their colors to the mast so to speak, like Nash, Buick and Chevrolet, and those that built super performance cars with overhead cam engines like Stutz or Duesenberg. In their case the OHC engine did give a small advantage in horsepower but at a cost that only the most expensive vehicles could justify. The superiority of the flathead engine continued until very high octane leaded gas became available in the early fifties. Some car companies began designing OHV short stroke engines in anticipation in the late forties. The new OHV engines were rather different. The large bore made room for larger valves than the old long stroke OHV designs. This took away one of the advantages of the flathead. Their valve sizes were not limited by the size of the cylinder, like an OHV. If you look at a flathead valve chamber or head gasket you will see that the valve chamber was wider than the cylinder bore, this was not possible in an OHV engine. Even then the difference in power was small. Compare the brand new, 1949 Lincoln, 337 cu in 154HP flathead engine to the equally new, 1949 Cadillac OHV engine of 160HP. This was at a time when 7.5:1 compression was the norm. 7.5:1 or 7.8:1 was about the highest practical compression ratio for a typical flathead. Anything higher and the small combustion chamber cuts off the breathing. Packard achieved an 8.7:1 ratio in 1954 but this was an exception. The Packard featured valves tipped towards the cylinder bores, and quite a sophisticated combustion chamber design. The short stroke OHV engine was also better suited to high speed superhighways then being built and worked well with automatic transmissions, then becoming popular. The proponents of OHV engines did such a good job of advertising and promoting them, that the public became convinced any car with a flathead engine was obsolete, totally inferior and soon to be extinct. This was something of an exaggeration but it did kill the sales of any flathead powered car. Even today owners of cars from the forties and early fifties, are pleasantly surprised at how well their flathead powered cars perform. They may not develop as much horsepower at high speeds as their OHV V8 counterparts but do have plenty of power for all practical purposes and can easily keep up with normal traffic. And the old long stroke, flathead engine with its high torque at low RPMs makes driving a manual transmission car so easy.

Is it a Bermuda Bell? Way cool if it is.

Have you tried your local Buick dealer or NAPA store? The NAPA store is cheaper.

It is easy to squeeze the rag in, the panel is spring loaded so it stays tight to the handle, it can easily be pushed in.

Typical GM handles for years were held on with a wire clip. You can remove the clip with a rag. Take a piece of rag and slide it under the handle from the knob side. A little pull and the clip should come out. Then the handle will pull off. You can also buy a special tool for pushing out the clip. Auto parts stores have them, looks like a putty knife with a notch in it. To replace the handle just snap the clip back in place and push the handle on.

Non factory accessory? Dodge or Ford wheels will bolt onto a junior Packard. Will Caribbean wheels? Packard had a policy of building whatever the customer wanted. I expect a customer could get Caribbean wheels on any model they would fit. If not factory installed then certainly dealer installed. There was a vogue for wire wheels in the early fifties. 1953 and 54. They were offered by most car companies. Aftermarket, I could not say for sure but believe Dayton was in business then. Certainly the car companies were getting them from somewhere. One thing for sure, aftermarket wire wheel style hubcaps were available in the early fifties. In any case genuine wire wheels were a very expensive and therefore rare option. But they were seen in the fifties especially on personal luxury cars like Buick Skylark, Packard Caribbean,Ford Thunderbird, and so on.

When your car was built the steering column was attached to the frame and the body was lowered over it. There should be a plate screwed to the floor around the column. Remove the front clip, steering wheel and possibly gearshift then lift the body off. If this is not practical you should be able to detach the drag link, unbolt the steering box from the frame and drop it down out the bottom. You will have to see if you have room underneath the car. The steering box and column are an assembly and must be removed as one piece.

Neat Old Stuff