13 Months latter

[Guest 39Super8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: peter packard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is it possible to promulgate a procedure to conduct this change? I don't mind paying to obtain this information. Best regards Peter Toet. </div></div>

Peter,

Drop me an email, I will give the long and short of what has to be done. If you make it to Phoenix this fall, we can discuss over an ice cold beer!

Jim

[Guest 39Super8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: peter packard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is it possible to promulgate a procedure to conduct this change? I don't mind paying to obtain this information. Best regards Peter Toet. </div></div>

Peter,

Drop me an email, I will give the long and short of what has to be done. If you make it to Phoenix this fall, we can discuss over an ice cold beer!

Jim

[Guest 39Super8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rusty_OToole</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Engine life more than doubled between 1935 and 1945. New wartime developments like chrome piston rings, better oil, better filters, and improved metallurgy all helped.

</div></div>

Rusty,

You are absolutely right! engine technology, especially in Packard design took a quantum leap in that 5/10 year period.

What folks have to understand, is that the 320 and 384 engines basically date back to 1925. They were well designed, in many ways, totally over engineered. This is not a bad thing, just engines 30+ years ahead of time. Let’s face it, 50 psi. oiling systems with full flow filtration systems were a few years off for the mass auto makers.

In 1935, Packard continued in the evolution of the older aluminum case 320 design. They used existing dimensions from connecting rods that were babbited, and had bearing vendors such as Federal Mogul design bearings to fit the existing (or close to existing) connecting rod design. This bearing design utilized a very thin shell, that curved around the rod, with very inherent design flaws. The shell was just to thin and unstable to properly support and stabilize the bearing material (in my opinion). This was just a design flaw.

The bearings self destructing in the neighborhood of 30,000 miles was specifically a problem with the 35 to 39 320. I have been told that the older babited rods did much better.

On the flip side, the newly designed junior engines were much simpler, being of mono-cast iron block design, and utilizing modern (more or less still the standard) precision insert connecting rod bearings. These engines were much simpler, utilizing bypass oil filtration, flat tappet cam followers and simpler over all design. The junior engines were very durable, less fragile, and simple to work on.

In 1940, the all new 356 was basically a supersized junior engine (sort of) utilizing all of the above mentioned simplifications and even going to the convent use of hydraulic lifters (another innovative feature that far back). The 356 is a robust long lasting engine, but it should be, it was designed 14 – 15 years latter.

I really like the look of the old 320, and with modern oil, updated bearings, pistons, and piston ring design, I hope to pinch a few more miles between rebuilds than in the old days.

These are thoughts I have formulated from listening to many Packard experts, reading manuals, and hands on examination of parts and pieces. I suppose I will have more to report in about 10 years of driving (providing I can beat the odds on stories told about heads and blocks cracking on 38 and 39 320 engines).

Jim

[Guest 39Super8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rusty_OToole</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Engine life more than doubled between 1935 and 1945. New wartime developments like chrome piston rings, better oil, better filters, and improved metallurgy all helped.

</div></div>

Rusty,

You are absolutely right! engine technology, especially in Packard design took a quantum leap in that 5/10 year period.

What folks have to understand, is that the 320 and 384 engines basically date back to 1925. They were well designed, in many ways, totally over engineered. This is not a bad thing, just engines 30+ years ahead of time. Let’s face it, 50 psi. oiling systems with full flow filtration systems were a few years off for the mass auto makers.

In 1935, Packard continued in the evolution of the older aluminum case 320 design. They used existing dimensions from connecting rods that were babbited, and had bearing vendors such as Federal Mogul design bearings to fit the existing (or close to existing) connecting rod design. This bearing design utilized a very thin shell, that curved around the rod, with very inherent design flaws. The shell was just to thin and unstable to properly support and stabilize the bearing material (in my opinion). This was just a design flaw.

The bearings self destructing in the neighborhood of 30,000 miles was specifically a problem with the 35 to 39 320. I have been told that the older babited rods did much better.

On the flip side, the newly designed junior engines were much simpler, being of mono-cast iron block design, and utilizing modern (more or less still the standard) precision insert connecting rod bearings. These engines were much simpler, utilizing bypass oil filtration, flat tappet cam followers and simpler over all design. The junior engines were very durable, less fragile, and simple to work on.

In 1940, the all new 356 was basically a supersized junior engine (sort of) utilizing all of the above mentioned simplifications and even going to the convent use of hydraulic lifters (another innovative feature that far back). The 356 is a robust long lasting engine, but it should be, it was designed 14 – 15 years latter.

I really like the look of the old 320, and with modern oil, updated bearings, pistons, and piston ring design, I hope to pinch a few more miles between rebuilds than in the old days.

These are thoughts I have formulated from listening to many Packard experts, reading manuals, and hands on examination of parts and pieces. I suppose I will have more to report in about 10 years of driving (providing I can beat the odds on stories told about heads and blocks cracking on 38 and 39 320 engines).

Jim

[tbirdman]

Jim,

Interesting thread about engine life. Since I have a 32 384, what should I expect in your research to engine life and weaknesses/strengths?

[tbirdman]

Jim,

Interesting thread about engine life. Since I have a 32 384, what should I expect in your research to engine life and weaknesses/strengths?

[Guest 39Super8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tbirdman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jim,

Interesting thread about engine life. Since I have a 32 384, what should I expect in your research to engine life and weaknesses/strengths? </div></div>

Ken,

A friend here in Arizona recently did a 34 384 complete engine rebuild. From what the old hand Packard mechanics tell me, and what I saw looking at the 384 that was rebuilt here in town, they seem to be excellent engines. They have babitted rods, and are a relatively low RPM engine. I have never heard a disparaging word about the 384.

I honestly do not know if the babbited rods could easily be converted to insert bearings. I don’t really think it would be necessary if in good shape, or properly re-babbited.

As far as I know, the 34 and earlier 320 engines gave many miles of trouble free service. My late friend that worked for ECA never mentioned anything about early 320’s and had one in his 900 roadster. From what I gather this was just a glitch with the later 320 insert design.

Bill Lauer (founder of PI) told me that they did so many 320 rod bearing conversions in the 60’s and early 70’s that Chrysler thought they had a bearing issue due to the abnormally large number of rod inserts being sold.

Jim

[Guest 39Super8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tbirdman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jim,

Interesting thread about engine life. Since I have a 32 384, what should I expect in your research to engine life and weaknesses/strengths? </div></div>

Ken,

A friend here in Arizona recently did a 34 384 complete engine rebuild. From what the old hand Packard mechanics tell me, and what I saw looking at the 384 that was rebuilt here in town, they seem to be excellent engines. They have babitted rods, and are a relatively low RPM engine. I have never heard a disparaging word about the 384.

I honestly do not know if the babbited rods could easily be converted to insert bearings. I don’t really think it would be necessary if in good shape, or properly re-babbited.

As far as I know, the 34 and earlier 320 engines gave many miles of trouble free service. My late friend that worked for ECA never mentioned anything about early 320’s and had one in his 900 roadster. From what I gather this was just a glitch with the later 320 insert design.

Bill Lauer (founder of PI) told me that they did so many 320 rod bearing conversions in the 60’s and early 70’s that Chrysler thought they had a bearing issue due to the abnormally large number of rod inserts being sold.

Jim

[Guest]

REF : "babbit" & "insert" bearings and Cal Soest

Someone has their signals crossed here. Cal Soest is one of our few remaining "experts", one of the few people left alive on this planet who knows as much about Packard engines, their "pluses" and "minus's" as I do, and that is not bragging, it is simply fact.

First of all, let's get something straight about the 1939 Packard "Super" Eight. Like all pre-war Packards, it was a very good buy for the money. No, it will not keep up with a Packard Twelve, Cad 16, or other "super-luxury" car. But so what? You could buy several 1939 Packard Super Eights for the price of one "super luxury" car. You get what you pay for. Packard did not get the reputation it had, for a quality good buy, by short-changing its customers! Packard DESERVED its reputation, by providing good product within a given price class.

Just as, within ITS price class, a 280 cu. in. Packard "120" series car was a fantastic buy for ITS money, the more expensive, faster, and more powerful 320 Cu. in. Packard '39 "Super" Eight was a good buy for ITS money.

I am unclear whether you are trying to tell us you found "poured babbit" bearings in your '39 Packard Super Eight. If you did, it is not surprising that they failed.

Packard engineers went nuts in the late 20's and early 1930's trying to find the solution to connecting rod bearing failure. They finally did, and the solution can be seen in ANY "stock" 1935 or later Packard product. "Inset" type rod bearings. If you found "babbit" bearings in your rods, that means it was "butchered" by someone before you got it.

The only PUBLISHED test I know of a "poured babbit" bearing Packard car was done by General motors, of an early 1930's Packard "Standard Eight". It ran about 2,000 miles wide open before encouring rod bearing failure. Examination of the evolution of Packard connecting rod "big end" design down thru the years, up till the end of 1934 production, would take too long to go into here.

When I used to work with a well known (now deceased) Packard engine restorer, we used to make sick jokes about the people who would try and tell us that "poured babbit" was an acceptble shop technique for long stroke Packard motors. It is. If you have a time machine, and can go back to driving your Packard on 1920's roads, at 1920's speeds.

If you want to keep up with traffic today, on any suburban highway, forgot about poured babbit in a long-stroke Packard engine. Freeway driving ? Forget it.

Someone mis-understood Cal. He knows that once a Packard's engine is PROPERLY restored, meaning the rods have "insert" type rod bearings as ALL Packards had at the factory for 1935 and later production, it wont break at speed. EVER.

In late 1934, to introduce the 1935 model year, Packard took a bone-stock Standard Eight sedan and ran it wide open for TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND miles. Average speed was a hair under 90 mph. Again, a "Standard Eight" . Not a Super or a Twelve, which, of course, would have gone much faster.

The lab report from Packard's engineering test lab said "the engine had no measurable wear, and could have been re-assembled as is and completed the test again..!

Yes, the "Super Eights" for 1937-1939 production are not "REAL" Super Eights. They are in fact the much smaller (again - 320 cu in) STANDARD eight that was introduced in the mid 1920's, to replace the smaller Packard six. The "REAL" Packard Super Eight was discontinued following 1936 production, because it was too long to fit in the new chassis set up for the IFS. It was a 384 cu. in monster, that at slower speed ranges, most certainly WILL almost keep up with a Packard V-12 or Cadillac V-16.

So what ! The '39 Packard Super Eight was a good, reliable engine, that did what it was supposed to do. PROPERLY re-built, they give excellent service under TODAY's driving conditions.

Give Cal my regards next time you talk to him. You cant go wrong taking advantage of Cal's knowledge and his services (that is, IF you listen to him ! )

Pete Hartmann

Big Springs,

Arizona

[Guest]

REF : "babbit" & "insert" bearings and Cal Soest

Someone has their signals crossed here. Cal Soest is one of our few remaining "experts", one of the few people left alive on this planet who knows as much about Packard engines, their "pluses" and "minus's" as I do, and that is not bragging, it is simply fact.

First of all, let's get something straight about the 1939 Packard "Super" Eight. Like all pre-war Packards, it was a very good buy for the money. No, it will not keep up with a Packard Twelve, Cad 16, or other "super-luxury" car. But so what? You could buy several 1939 Packard Super Eights for the price of one "super luxury" car. You get what you pay for. Packard did not get the reputation it had, for a quality good buy, by short-changing its customers! Packard DESERVED its reputation, by providing good product within a given price class.

Just as, within ITS price class, a 280 cu. in. Packard "120" series car was a fantastic buy for ITS money, the more expensive, faster, and more powerful 320 Cu. in. Packard '39 "Super" Eight was a good buy for ITS money.

I am unclear whether you are trying to tell us you found "poured babbit" bearings in your '39 Packard Super Eight. If you did, it is not surprising that they failed.

Packard engineers went nuts in the late 20's and early 1930's trying to find the solution to connecting rod bearing failure. They finally did, and the solution can be seen in ANY "stock" 1935 or later Packard product. "Inset" type rod bearings. If you found "babbit" bearings in your rods, that means it was "butchered" by someone before you got it.

The only PUBLISHED test I know of a "poured babbit" bearing Packard car was done by General motors, of an early 1930's Packard "Standard Eight". It ran about 2,000 miles wide open before encouring rod bearing failure. Examination of the evolution of Packard connecting rod "big end" design down thru the years, up till the end of 1934 production, would take too long to go into here.

When I used to work with a well known (now deceased) Packard engine restorer, we used to make sick jokes about the people who would try and tell us that "poured babbit" was an acceptble shop technique for long stroke Packard motors. It is. If you have a time machine, and can go back to driving your Packard on 1920's roads, at 1920's speeds.

If you want to keep up with traffic today, on any suburban highway, forgot about poured babbit in a long-stroke Packard engine. Freeway driving ? Forget it.

Someone mis-understood Cal. He knows that once a Packard's engine is PROPERLY restored, meaning the rods have "insert" type rod bearings as ALL Packards had at the factory for 1935 and later production, it wont break at speed. EVER.

In late 1934, to introduce the 1935 model year, Packard took a bone-stock Standard Eight sedan and ran it wide open for TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND miles. Average speed was a hair under 90 mph. Again, a "Standard Eight" . Not a Super or a Twelve, which, of course, would have gone much faster.

The lab report from Packard's engineering test lab said "the engine had no measurable wear, and could have been re-assembled as is and completed the test again..!

Yes, the "Super Eights" for 1937-1939 production are not "REAL" Super Eights. They are in fact the much smaller (again - 320 cu in) STANDARD eight that was introduced in the mid 1920's, to replace the smaller Packard six. The "REAL" Packard Super Eight was discontinued following 1936 production, because it was too long to fit in the new chassis set up for the IFS. It was a 384 cu. in monster, that at slower speed ranges, most certainly WILL almost keep up with a Packard V-12 or Cadillac V-16.

So what ! The '39 Packard Super Eight was a good, reliable engine, that did what it was supposed to do. PROPERLY re-built, they give excellent service under TODAY's driving conditions.

Give Cal my regards next time you talk to him. You cant go wrong taking advantage of Cal's knowledge and his services (that is, IF you listen to him ! )

Pete Hartmann

Big Springs,

Arizona

[flackmaster]

Jim - Congrats on your accomplishments with the 1703. And now you've got a popular thread going here - with all the songs being sung, you could start a choir. The real question remains, however, why 13 months? I believe even elephants give birth in less time... OK, now that you have removed That fork from your side (sorry, a forum is open territory), I concur with the underlying buzz that you should "once and for all" document the welding/machine work necessary to convert these rods to modern insert bearings. Then sell it. Sadly, too few will take you seriously if you give it away as free advice, and I know you have been to the well and back numerous times just to check and verify what several sources told you in general without having the technical details clearly laid out. Of course, if you didn't photo-document the before/after process just call upon your "Packard Parts Search and Obtain Crew" to come up with some more rods....

And not to push you back up to the front lines of this battle (would I do that?), you didn't mention the copper/lead insert bearings used during the same era as the babbited shells....I mean, you ARE from The Copper State, right?

[flackmaster]

Jim - Congrats on your accomplishments with the 1703. And now you've got a popular thread going here - with all the songs being sung, you could start a choir. The real question remains, however, why 13 months? I believe even elephants give birth in less time... OK, now that you have removed That fork from your side (sorry, a forum is open territory), I concur with the underlying buzz that you should "once and for all" document the welding/machine work necessary to convert these rods to modern insert bearings. Then sell it. Sadly, too few will take you seriously if you give it away as free advice, and I know you have been to the well and back numerous times just to check and verify what several sources told you in general without having the technical details clearly laid out. Of course, if you didn't photo-document the before/after process just call upon your "Packard Parts Search and Obtain Crew" to come up with some more rods....

And not to push you back up to the front lines of this battle (would I do that?), you didn't mention the copper/lead insert bearings used during the same era as the babbited shells....I mean, you ARE from The Copper State, right?

[Guest]

I am confused by your "post". Let me suggest some changes in your terminology.

"Babbit" is often used as the general term for ALL bearing material. "Poured babbit" is what this fellow who had bearing trouble in his '39 Super Eight, MAY have had. "Poured Babbit" can typically be just about any combination of lead and nickle. It was an accepted shop practice for automotive engines up thru the early-mid 1930's. Works fine in low speed low power applications, so long as you expect to over-haul an engine at 20 - 30,000 mile intervals.

As others have noted, Packard went to "insert" type connecting rod bearings for 1935 production, along with most of the automotive industry.

Unfortunately, by the time classic-era 1935-1939 Packards started getting engine "restorations", "insert" type rod bearings that would fit the Packard connecting rods were no longer available. This as someone else noted, is because by the late 1940's, an SAE tech. standard had developed for the thickness of the steel "shell" that was thicker than what Federal Mogul and Packard had originally decided was "the answer".

Those who KNEW what they were doing, again, as others have noted, found that with a little work with a Sun hone, a Chrysler insert rod bearing would work as well as asubstitute for the "correct" bearing again, out of production by the late 1950's.

It was a common shop practice up thru the 1960's, amongst people who SHOULD have known better, to "butcher" 1935-1939 Packard connecting rods so they could pour lead/nickle babbit into them. Of course LEGIT Packard engine restorers such as Cal Soest and E.C. Last,and so many other competent Packard engine restorers have ALWAYS done - came up with a little machine work so they could use "inserts" like Packard had originally.

Again, technically, people call ANY bearing material in connecting rods "babbit", as a generic term for the bearing material, whether it is poured into the "big end" of the rod directly, or is made up as part of a steel shell "insert".

I do not know what the so called "Junior" 1935-1939 Packards ( 110 six and 120 eight) used for bearing material in their "insert" type rod bearings (remember, for some goofy reason, Packard called the 1938 "120" an "Eight", which was pretty silly, because up thru 1936 production, the "REAL" Packard "eight" was the much larger and more powerful "Standard Eight" . And the "Super Eight was the still larger and more powerful 384 cu in. engine that ended with 1936 production.

I do know that all "Senior" Packards, from the 320 cu. in "standard" eight, to the 384 cu. in "super" eight, to the Twelve, all came out the door of the Packard factory at East Grand Ave with copper-lead rod bearings, up thru the end of Packard's producing its "big car" line, which ended with the "gutting" of the "Senior Division" in June-August 1939.

The "copper lead" babbit bearing is, was, and remains, about the most durable bearing material available for extreme duty service. That is what the 1935 Packard Standard Eight that did 90 mph and more, for 25,000 miles, for that famous road test in late 34, had for bearings.

Obviously, full-flow oil filtration is required for the hard and durable copper lead rod bearing to give long-term service. Packard was one of the first to use full flow oil cooling and filtering, starting in 1934, if memory serves). ( I know my '34 Super Eight had both full flow oil FILTERING and COOLING - never owned a '33 Super Eight - best recollection is they had only partial flow oil filters and no oil cooling. Of interest - even the full flow oil cooling and filtering didn't completely "lick" the problem of "poured babbit" rod bearings "pounding out" at the increasing speeds the better roads of the 1930's permitted.

At some later point in the 1930's, Packard's Parts Dept. books started showing an alternate "babbit" material for the inserts - an aluminum based bearing material. This also is common in aircraft engines. I personally, in all the pre-war Packards I have ever worked on, NEVER seen those aluminum "babbit" inserts.

[Guest]

I am confused by your "post". Let me suggest some changes in your terminology.

"Babbit" is often used as the general term for ALL bearing material. "Poured babbit" is what this fellow who had bearing trouble in his '39 Super Eight, MAY have had. "Poured Babbit" can typically be just about any combination of lead and nickle. It was an accepted shop practice for automotive engines up thru the early-mid 1930's. Works fine in low speed low power applications, so long as you expect to over-haul an engine at 20 - 30,000 mile intervals.

As others have noted, Packard went to "insert" type connecting rod bearings for 1935 production, along with most of the automotive industry.

Unfortunately, by the time classic-era 1935-1939 Packards started getting engine "restorations", "insert" type rod bearings that would fit the Packard connecting rods were no longer available. This as someone else noted, is because by the late 1940's, an SAE tech. standard had developed for the thickness of the steel "shell" that was thicker than what Federal Mogul and Packard had originally decided was "the answer".

Those who KNEW what they were doing, again, as others have noted, found that with a little work with a Sun hone, a Chrysler insert rod bearing would work as well as asubstitute for the "correct" bearing again, out of production by the late 1950's.

It was a common shop practice up thru the 1960's, amongst people who SHOULD have known better, to "butcher" 1935-1939 Packard connecting rods so they could pour lead/nickle babbit into them. Of course LEGIT Packard engine restorers such as Cal Soest and E.C. Last,and so many other competent Packard engine restorers have ALWAYS done - came up with a little machine work so they could use "inserts" like Packard had originally.

Again, technically, people call ANY bearing material in connecting rods "babbit", as a generic term for the bearing material, whether it is poured into the "big end" of the rod directly, or is made up as part of a steel shell "insert".

I do not know what the so called "Junior" 1935-1939 Packards ( 110 six and 120 eight) used for bearing material in their "insert" type rod bearings (remember, for some goofy reason, Packard called the 1938 "120" an "Eight", which was pretty silly, because up thru 1936 production, the "REAL" Packard "eight" was the much larger and more powerful "Standard Eight" . And the "Super Eight was the still larger and more powerful 384 cu in. engine that ended with 1936 production.

I do know that all "Senior" Packards, from the 320 cu. in "standard" eight, to the 384 cu. in "super" eight, to the Twelve, all came out the door of the Packard factory at East Grand Ave with copper-lead rod bearings, up thru the end of Packard's producing its "big car" line, which ended with the "gutting" of the "Senior Division" in June-August 1939.

The "copper lead" babbit bearing is, was, and remains, about the most durable bearing material available for extreme duty service. That is what the 1935 Packard Standard Eight that did 90 mph and more, for 25,000 miles, for that famous road test in late 34, had for bearings.

Obviously, full-flow oil filtration is required for the hard and durable copper lead rod bearing to give long-term service. Packard was one of the first to use full flow oil cooling and filtering, starting in 1934, if memory serves). ( I know my '34 Super Eight had both full flow oil FILTERING and COOLING - never owned a '33 Super Eight - best recollection is they had only partial flow oil filters and no oil cooling. Of interest - even the full flow oil cooling and filtering didn't completely "lick" the problem of "poured babbit" rod bearings "pounding out" at the increasing speeds the better roads of the 1930's permitted.

At some later point in the 1930's, Packard's Parts Dept. books started showing an alternate "babbit" material for the inserts - an aluminum based bearing material. This also is common in aircraft engines. I personally, in all the pre-war Packards I have ever worked on, NEVER seen those aluminum "babbit" inserts.

[Guest imported_Speedster]

Hello, Pete

Where have you been for the last year or two?

Did you get a new computer?

[Guest imported_Speedster]

Hello, Pete

Where have you been for the last year or two?

Did you get a new computer?

[Guest]

Hi Rick - naw - same ole computer. Got tired of getting TOS'd out of here when I would disagree with some of these so called "experts", so I stayed away.

Was invited to attend the AACA "nationals" in Tucson at end of month with the Twelve. Hopefully, the "hard heads" in here will have developed a better sense of humor by now..! so maybe i will be in here for a while ! ( ? ? ? )

best regards

p f h

[Guest]

Hi Rick - naw - same ole computer. Got tired of getting TOS'd out of here when I would disagree with some of these so called "experts", so I stayed away.

Was invited to attend the AACA "nationals" in Tucson at end of month with the Twelve. Hopefully, the "hard heads" in here will have developed a better sense of humor by now..! so maybe i will be in here for a while ! ( ? ? ? )

best regards

p f h

[Owen_Dyneto]

I don't want to start this babbit-vs-insert thing needlessly, it's had tens of thousands of words already on this and other forums, but this has been an uncommonly good thread, kudos to the contributors. 1934 was a transition year for rod bearings for Packard; while most had babbitt, some very late cars had inserts. When I finally did the engine on 34 Eight (320 ci) at 89,000 miles, I chose to stay with babbitt. The car has a 4.69 rear and is driven at modest speeds, rarely over 50 mph. There are a lot of factors to consider in the bearing question, no overwhelming factors either way in my view.

[Owen_Dyneto]

I don't want to start this babbit-vs-insert thing needlessly, it's had tens of thousands of words already on this and other forums, but this has been an uncommonly good thread, kudos to the contributors. 1934 was a transition year for rod bearings for Packard; while most had babbitt, some very late cars had inserts. When I finally did the engine on 34 Eight (320 ci) at 89,000 miles, I chose to stay with babbitt. The car has a 4.69 rear and is driven at modest speeds, rarely over 50 mph. There are a lot of factors to consider in the bearing question, no overwhelming factors either way in my view.

[Guest imported_Speedster]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Got tired of getting TOS'd out of here when I would disagree with some of these so called "experts", so I stayed away.

Hopefully, the "hard heads" in here will have developed a better sense of humor by now..! so maybe i will be in here for a while ! ( ? ? ? )

</div></div>

Great, Just try not to 'Rock the Boat' Too much, and I think we can all get along fine. I Hope so, anyway.

[Guest imported_Speedster]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Got tired of getting TOS'd out of here when I would disagree with some of these so called "experts", so I stayed away.

Hopefully, the "hard heads" in here will have developed a better sense of humor by now..! so maybe i will be in here for a while ! ( ? ? ? )

</div></div>

Great, Just try not to 'Rock the Boat' Too much, and I think we can all get along fine. I Hope so, anyway.

[Guest 1956Packard]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...don't want to start this babbit-vs-insert thing needlessly...</div></div>

I know it's had tons of coverage and that everyone has differing thoughts on it. I don't mind seeing stuff again, though. I've got a 31 standard eight that needs a re-build one day.

I'll take all I can get!!!

Geoff

[Guest 1956Packard]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...don't want to start this babbit-vs-insert thing needlessly...</div></div>

I know it's had tons of coverage and that everyone has differing thoughts on it. I don't mind seeing stuff again, though. I've got a 31 standard eight that needs a re-build one day.

I'll take all I can get!!!

Geoff

[Guest ZondaC12]

Yeah I like reading it too! Granted we're talking Packards here but both types of bearings were used by other mfr's too! Namely mine! haha

[Guest ZondaC12]

Yeah I like reading it too! Granted we're talking Packards here but both types of bearings were used by other mfr's too! Namely mine! haha

[Tom M]

Petey welcome back. I hope all is well with you.

Someday I will get my Poured Babbitt engine back together.

[Tom M]

Petey welcome back. I hope all is well with you.

Someday I will get my Poured Babbitt engine back together.

[Guest 39Super8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: flackmaster</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jim - Congrats on your accomplishments with the 1703. And now you've got a popular thread going here - with all the songs being sung, you could start a choir. The real question remains, however, why 13 months? I believe even elephants give birth in less time... OK, now that you have removed That fork from your side (sorry, a forum is open territory </div></div>

Hi Dave,

Why 13 months? Fair question. I assume many here are wondering the same thing. I guess the main reason I named this thread what I did was I couldn’t believe it could take this long to make a car represented as solid driver / original condition to actually be so (I am sure no one else on the forum has ever had a similar experience LOL)

<span style="font-weight: bold">Warning! the following diatribe is mind numbing, and may cause permanent mental damage. If you have never felt the pain of pouring your heart and soul into a classic automobile, I recommend not reading!</span>

I bought the car as a Christmas present for my wife December of 06. The car was represented as a running driving turn key car. I gambled on the car being as represented and bought it. The car arrived in time for Christmas, and we were thrilled. As I began to look the car over, I realized it was in dire need of TLC. About that time the rod bearings began to let go.

Below, is a list of exercises executed over the following 13 months:

Rough running condition diagnosed. Cause: intake leaks, worn carb bushings, worn out distributor.

Remove carb, rebuild, re-bush throttle shaft.

Re-build distributor including bushings, ignition plate (thanks Dave & Joe!), and vacuum advance.

Replace cracked exhaust manifold with manifold found at PI swap meet. this involved extensive cleaning, and refinishing. Also included servicing thermal choke mechanism

for proper choke operation, and thermal heat riser, including swaping flap out of old manifold, and resurrecting existing parts. replacing stripped studs in the block was no picnic either. Installed new exhaust system that was reported to bolt in. Only had to cut and weld a little while to actually get it to fit right.

Pulling the rocker boxes out of the engine crankcase, grinding every pinned end, removing the old rollers, pressing out the old pins, and replacing all pins and rollers. Very delicate procedure getting pins perfectly square so as to press in, and not curl metal out as the pin comes through (pressure fed roller, metal would block oil holes.)

Electrical issues with incorrectly installed reproduction wiring harness. These included headlamp ground wires in wrong position on three prong connections. Dip switch wires connected incorrectly, wrong head lamp switch. rectified these problems. Found short in dome light wiring, corrected. Dimmer switch damaged, disassembled, carefully put tungsten windings back in groove and made function again. Disassembled inoperable amp gauge, found the “upgraded halogen 6-V headlamps” drew so much current the needle would jump the discharge stop and was stuck. Fixed amp gauge, and put sealed beams in. Amp gauge worked, and car’s charging system even kept up with lights on. Corrected wiring under dash, including dash lights, cig lighter, glove box light, and under dash map lights. Also installed dash pieces obtained at PI swap meet. took about 25 hours to get to fit fairly well. removed all add on wiring including add on signals. Removed incorrect horns, and restored horns obtained at PI swap meet. Restored and installed proper theft proof coil and ignition switch. Installed fog lamp switch and hooked up heater blower switch. Serviced stuck blower motor.

Installed new shift knob (of course, wouldn’t just thread on) horn button plastic (no way it would just fall in) and other interior trinkets.

Corrected shift linkage so car could be shifted and not hang in double neutral.

In the middle of all items listed above, I mulled over what to do about the connecting rods. I gathered opinions from high and low, talked to 6 or 7 machine shops that would not touch the job (something about welding on connecting rods scared them). A car friend took on part of the job as a mission of mercy. he could only do part of the job, some of the machining. Another task was the welding, another straitening and sizing the rods. Also worked with ARP to special make rod bolts that would work in this application. At the mercy of these individuals, working on there availability, rod bolts being manufactured and doing all the leg work, I only had about 6 honest months in the rods. Like I said, about 100 hours, including about a week of my Christmas vacation.

R&R rods, and installing new pistons block in the chassis. Oh what a treat this is! the rods will not go through the bore of the cylinder block on a 320 because the big end is bigger than the bore. The crank has bolt on counter weights that make it tough to get the rods threaded in from the bottom up through the crankcase, around the crank (while rotating the crank) into position (while holding rod up with a wooden dowel) so my wife could take pistons that are directionally installed (put happy face on top of piston with marker told wife “smiley face towards you honey!”) and put a dowel through to suspend the whole mess while I drug my gravitationally challenged self out from under the car about 20 million times (or so it seemed!) to install the wrist pin and compress rings to install.

Oh, I almost forgot! Fitting pistons, using a sunnen A/N hone while balancing on a piece of plywood atop the cylinder head studs. This only took what seemed an eternity in my contorted state of honing and measuring. Simple, right!

With the finishing touch before the inaugural run, fitting the trunk rack, about 20 -25 hours with painting and machining (looks great I might add!) we were off and driving.

I am sure everyone is wondering, what does this interesting determined (idiot) individual do in his spare time. well, I work at a technical school, live on and maintain an acre including a small herd of livestock, and a little horse. I attend college fulltime (sure should have done that when I was young) and take care of my ridiculous fleet of vehicles ranging from a hit and miss antique engine, to my antique semi.

So, there you have it, only 13 months to do a few minor things to a newly purchased, running driving pre-war senior Packard. Heck, I bet if I put my mind to it, I could have easily done it in 12 months.

For all that made it this far, you too must have felt pain of this magnitude while pouring your heart, soul, and bank account into a poor antique car that needs your skills and talents to remain functional, largely original and safe to operate. To all of you, I share your trials and tribulations, and solute you! It is worth every second…

[Guest 39Super8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: flackmaster</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jim - Congrats on your accomplishments with the 1703. And now you've got a popular thread going here - with all the songs being sung, you could start a choir. The real question remains, however, why 13 months? I believe even elephants give birth in less time... OK, now that you have removed That fork from your side (sorry, a forum is open territory </div></div>

Hi Dave,

Why 13 months? Fair question. I assume many here are wondering the same thing. I guess the main reason I named this thread what I did was I couldn’t believe it could take this long to make a car represented as solid driver / original condition to actually be so (I am sure no one else on the forum has ever had a similar experience LOL)

<span style="font-weight: bold">Warning! the following diatribe is mind numbing, and may cause permanent mental damage. If you have never felt the pain of pouring your heart and soul into a classic automobile, I recommend not reading!</span>

I bought the car as a Christmas present for my wife December of 06. The car was represented as a running driving turn key car. I gambled on the car being as represented and bought it. The car arrived in time for Christmas, and we were thrilled. As I began to look the car over, I realized it was in dire need of TLC. About that time the rod bearings began to let go.

Below, is a list of exercises executed over the following 13 months:

Rough running condition diagnosed. Cause: intake leaks, worn carb bushings, worn out distributor.

Remove carb, rebuild, re-bush throttle shaft.

Re-build distributor including bushings, ignition plate (thanks Dave & Joe!), and vacuum advance.

Replace cracked exhaust manifold with manifold found at PI swap meet. this involved extensive cleaning, and refinishing. Also included servicing thermal choke mechanism

for proper choke operation, and thermal heat riser, including swaping flap out of old manifold, and resurrecting existing parts. replacing stripped studs in the block was no picnic either. Installed new exhaust system that was reported to bolt in. Only had to cut and weld a little while to actually get it to fit right.

Pulling the rocker boxes out of the engine crankcase, grinding every pinned end, removing the old rollers, pressing out the old pins, and replacing all pins and rollers. Very delicate procedure getting pins perfectly square so as to press in, and not curl metal out as the pin comes through (pressure fed roller, metal would block oil holes.)

Electrical issues with incorrectly installed reproduction wiring harness. These included headlamp ground wires in wrong position on three prong connections. Dip switch wires connected incorrectly, wrong head lamp switch. rectified these problems. Found short in dome light wiring, corrected. Dimmer switch damaged, disassembled, carefully put tungsten windings back in groove and made function again. Disassembled inoperable amp gauge, found the “upgraded halogen 6-V headlamps” drew so much current the needle would jump the discharge stop and was stuck. Fixed amp gauge, and put sealed beams in. Amp gauge worked, and car’s charging system even kept up with lights on. Corrected wiring under dash, including dash lights, cig lighter, glove box light, and under dash map lights. Also installed dash pieces obtained at PI swap meet. took about 25 hours to get to fit fairly well. removed all add on wiring including add on signals. Removed incorrect horns, and restored horns obtained at PI swap meet. Restored and installed proper theft proof coil and ignition switch. Installed fog lamp switch and hooked up heater blower switch. Serviced stuck blower motor.

Installed new shift knob (of course, wouldn’t just thread on) horn button plastic (no way it would just fall in) and other interior trinkets.

Corrected shift linkage so car could be shifted and not hang in double neutral.

In the middle of all items listed above, I mulled over what to do about the connecting rods. I gathered opinions from high and low, talked to 6 or 7 machine shops that would not touch the job (something about welding on connecting rods scared them). A car friend took on part of the job as a mission of mercy. he could only do part of the job, some of the machining. Another task was the welding, another straitening and sizing the rods. Also worked with ARP to special make rod bolts that would work in this application. At the mercy of these individuals, working on there availability, rod bolts being manufactured and doing all the leg work, I only had about 6 honest months in the rods. Like I said, about 100 hours, including about a week of my Christmas vacation.

R&R rods, and installing new pistons block in the chassis. Oh what a treat this is! the rods will not go through the bore of the cylinder block on a 320 because the big end is bigger than the bore. The crank has bolt on counter weights that make it tough to get the rods threaded in from the bottom up through the crankcase, around the crank (while rotating the crank) into position (while holding rod up with a wooden dowel) so my wife could take pistons that are directionally installed (put happy face on top of piston with marker told wife “smiley face towards you honey!”) and put a dowel through to suspend the whole mess while I drug my gravitationally challenged self out from under the car about 20 million times (or so it seemed!) to install the wrist pin and compress rings to install.

Oh, I almost forgot! Fitting pistons, using a sunnen A/N hone while balancing on a piece of plywood atop the cylinder head studs. This only took what seemed an eternity in my contorted state of honing and measuring. Simple, right!

With the finishing touch before the inaugural run, fitting the trunk rack, about 20 -25 hours with painting and machining (looks great I might add!) we were off and driving.

I am sure everyone is wondering, what does this interesting determined (idiot) individual do in his spare time. well, I work at a technical school, live on and maintain an acre including a small herd of livestock, and a little horse. I attend college fulltime (sure should have done that when I was young) and take care of my ridiculous fleet of vehicles ranging from a hit and miss antique engine, to my antique semi.

So, there you have it, only 13 months to do a few minor things to a newly purchased, running driving pre-war senior Packard. Heck, I bet if I put my mind to it, I could have easily done it in 12 months.

For all that made it this far, you too must have felt pain of this magnitude while pouring your heart, soul, and bank account into a poor antique car that needs your skills and talents to remain functional, largely original and safe to operate. To all of you, I share your trials and tribulations, and solute you! It is worth every second…

[Guest 39Super8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Packard Twelve</div><div class="ubbcode-body">REF : "babbit" & "insert" bearings and Cal Soest

Someone has their signals crossed here. Cal Soest is one of our few remaining "experts", one of the few people left alive on this planet who knows as much about Packard engines, their "pluses" and "minus's" as I do, and that is not bragging, it is simply fact.

</div></div>

Peter, I have no idea what you mean about someone having their signals crossed. I am pretty sure we agree, but I can’t tell where you are going with this, as it seems crazy, Howard Hughes crazy! I think you repeated pretty much what has been agreed on already, and taken the side of what is agreed on. Don’t get me wrong, Howard Hughes crazy is fun, and many of the most brilliant people function in such a manor. I have met you, in Arizona, and you seem like a great guy! I bet you are the best mechanic in the western hemisphere! what does that have to do with all of us, including Cal Soest, Bill Lauer, Fritz Vaught (Famous former longtime Mickey Thompson mechanic / engineer) you, me, and just about everyone here agreeing about this conversion that was invented before I was born working well? This is really just a rhetorical question, I am sure you meant well.

[Guest 39Super8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Packard Twelve</div><div class="ubbcode-body">REF : "babbit" & "insert" bearings and Cal Soest

Someone has their signals crossed here. Cal Soest is one of our few remaining "experts", one of the few people left alive on this planet who knows as much about Packard engines, their "pluses" and "minus's" as I do, and that is not bragging, it is simply fact.

</div></div>

Peter, I have no idea what you mean about someone having their signals crossed. I am pretty sure we agree, but I can’t tell where you are going with this, as it seems crazy, Howard Hughes crazy! I think you repeated pretty much what has been agreed on already, and taken the side of what is agreed on. Don’t get me wrong, Howard Hughes crazy is fun, and many of the most brilliant people function in such a manor. I have met you, in Arizona, and you seem like a great guy! I bet you are the best mechanic in the western hemisphere! what does that have to do with all of us, including Cal Soest, Bill Lauer, Fritz Vaught (Famous former longtime Mickey Thompson mechanic / engineer) you, me, and just about everyone here agreeing about this conversion that was invented before I was born working well? This is really just a rhetorical question, I am sure you meant well.

[Guest 39Super8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: flackmaster</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> OK, now that you have removed That fork from your side (sorry, a forum is open territory), I concur with the underlying buzz that you should "once and for all" document the welding/machine work necessary to convert these rods to modern insert bearings. Then sell it. Sadly, too few will take you seriously if you give it away as free advice, and I know you have been to the well and back numerous times just to check and verify what several sources told you in general without having the technical details clearly laid out. </div></div>

Well, I am embarrassed, I figured that what ever we did would be of little interest to anyone. I am fine with telling everyone what was done, but I am not guaranteeing it is correct, or the way it should have been done.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Warning! more mind numbing diatribe. If you have never been at the mercy of multiple talented people working diligently against their will for the betterment of a classic automobile, immediately close this post! </span>

Lets start with the objectives! original bearing in 35 to 39 320 super 8 thin wall, with wrap around edges to take thrust on crank journal. when converting to Chrysler bearing, the big end rod width must be increased to control side float and oil. to much side clearance could cause rod knock, and to much oil escaping from rod bearing. Plain bearings live by maintaining a healthy film of oil to hydraulically keep the rod bearing from touching the rod journal (in theory!)

This operation was basically described by Fritz Vaught to me over the phone. He had done this to many Packard 8 marine racing engines. Thanks Fritz!

Put large washers between the rod cap and rod. take to full torque. Patiently heliarc weld full circle both sides, being cautious not to flow material over the edge in order to use the original bore as a starting point for roughing in the thrust surfaces. Next the weld is cut down to the washer, leaving jagged edges to be finished down to the original rod surface latter. This operation is super time consuming, because you can’t just crap down a fast sloppy bead. Heat is your enemy, as to much will distort and ruin the rod.

I assisted in some of the operation, but was probably just in the way. A local jack of all trades, John Evans was basically the brains on the machining end. John reluctantly got sucked in. John made two major fixtures, one for the original rod ID and one for the finished (Chrysler) ID. A tool was made to put the Chrysler bearing in, in order to drill the hole to oil the small end.

The welded rods were put on his mill, and he roughed the sides of the rods in. this made them fairly perpendicular to the rod ID.

Off to the automotive machine shop, Morrison Auto machine, maybe the last and best old time machine shop on the face of the planet (yeah, I like these guys!) They suffered the pain of clipping the caps and rod mating surfaces, pressing in and indexing the new custom rod bolts, and sizing the big ends. You have to understand, most of the time, you resize a couple of thousandths, in this case, best I can figure, there was a minimum of about .012 to 020” depending on how much was clipped from mating surfaces. This must have taken a zillion hours of mission of mercy hours. rods straightened and twisted on location of newly finished rod big end bores.

Rods now ready to be final sized for proper width, and clearance on each connecting rod journal.

For this, John decided to use a shaper. He said it was slow, but a safe controllable way to ensure a good outcome. Don’t ask me, but it seemed slow. Never the less, they were properly sized.

All that’s left is to make relief’s for bearing tangs.

Simple, right! Wrong. no one would even consider doing this. Seriously, I was looking to trade American dollars to just drop the job off, and pick it up finished. No doing.

This operation really was about 100 hours of combined effort. Real expensive too! Rod bolts about $270, bearings about $125 and expert machine and welding time, priceless!

I talked to John a little while ago, he said the pain is subsiding, but would never consider doing this operation for less than a couple thousand. I called in every favor I had with these guys, and am grateful they considered doing the job. I know after not finding a sole who would take this job on, everyone will enlighten me as to “the way it should have been done” and “who should have done it” Seriously, I did my best, the local antique car enthusiasts / machinists & welder did their best. So far, it works, but I did not invent it, we just figured out how to do it.

Have any of you reading this ever twisted the arm of people who do not want to get sucked into our antique car restoration nightmares, and made them active participants in the madness? LOL Absolutely!

<span style="font-weight: bold">Warning, the fore mentioned story may not be the right way to do the described work. Following these instruction could result in the destruction of your engine! This operation was lead by a desperate under-informed car enthusiast. </span>

[Guest 39Super8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: flackmaster</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> OK, now that you have removed That fork from your side (sorry, a forum is open territory), I concur with the underlying buzz that you should "once and for all" document the welding/machine work necessary to convert these rods to modern insert bearings. Then sell it. Sadly, too few will take you seriously if you give it away as free advice, and I know you have been to the well and back numerous times just to check and verify what several sources told you in general without having the technical details clearly laid out. </div></div>

Well, I am embarrassed, I figured that what ever we did would be of little interest to anyone. I am fine with telling everyone what was done, but I am not guaranteeing it is correct, or the way it should have been done.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Warning! more mind numbing diatribe. If you have never been at the mercy of multiple talented people working diligently against their will for the betterment of a classic automobile, immediately close this post! </span>

Lets start with the objectives! original bearing in 35 to 39 320 super 8 thin wall, with wrap around edges to take thrust on crank journal. when converting to Chrysler bearing, the big end rod width must be increased to control side float and oil. to much side clearance could cause rod knock, and to much oil escaping from rod bearing. Plain bearings live by maintaining a healthy film of oil to hydraulically keep the rod bearing from touching the rod journal (in theory!)

This operation was basically described by Fritz Vaught to me over the phone. He had done this to many Packard 8 marine racing engines. Thanks Fritz!

Put large washers between the rod cap and rod. take to full torque. Patiently heliarc weld full circle both sides, being cautious not to flow material over the edge in order to use the original bore as a starting point for roughing in the thrust surfaces. Next the weld is cut down to the washer, leaving jagged edges to be finished down to the original rod surface latter. This operation is super time consuming, because you can’t just crap down a fast sloppy bead. Heat is your enemy, as to much will distort and ruin the rod.

I assisted in some of the operation, but was probably just in the way. A local jack of all trades, John Evans was basically the brains on the machining end. John reluctantly got sucked in. John made two major fixtures, one for the original rod ID and one for the finished (Chrysler) ID. A tool was made to put the Chrysler bearing in, in order to drill the hole to oil the small end.

The welded rods were put on his mill, and he roughed the sides of the rods in. this made them fairly perpendicular to the rod ID.

Off to the automotive machine shop, Morrison Auto machine, maybe the last and best old time machine shop on the face of the planet (yeah, I like these guys!) They suffered the pain of clipping the caps and rod mating surfaces, pressing in and indexing the new custom rod bolts, and sizing the big ends. You have to understand, most of the time, you resize a couple of thousandths, in this case, best I can figure, there was a minimum of about .012 to 020” depending on how much was clipped from mating surfaces. This must have taken a zillion hours of mission of mercy hours. rods straightened and twisted on location of newly finished rod big end bores.

Rods now ready to be final sized for proper width, and clearance on each connecting rod journal.

For this, John decided to use a shaper. He said it was slow, but a safe controllable way to ensure a good outcome. Don’t ask me, but it seemed slow. Never the less, they were properly sized.

All that’s left is to make relief’s for bearing tangs.

Simple, right! Wrong. no one would even consider doing this. Seriously, I was looking to trade American dollars to just drop the job off, and pick it up finished. No doing.

This operation really was about 100 hours of combined effort. Real expensive too! Rod bolts about $270, bearings about $125 and expert machine and welding time, priceless!

I talked to John a little while ago, he said the pain is subsiding, but would never consider doing this operation for less than a couple thousand. I called in every favor I had with these guys, and am grateful they considered doing the job. I know after not finding a sole who would take this job on, everyone will enlighten me as to “the way it should have been done” and “who should have done it” Seriously, I did my best, the local antique car enthusiasts / machinists & welder did their best. So far, it works, but I did not invent it, we just figured out how to do it.

Have any of you reading this ever twisted the arm of people who do not want to get sucked into our antique car restoration nightmares, and made them active participants in the madness? LOL Absolutely!

<span style="font-weight: bold">Warning, the fore mentioned story may not be the right way to do the described work. Following these instruction could result in the destruction of your engine! This operation was lead by a desperate under-informed car enthusiast. </span>

[Tom M]

39Super,

I envy you. You have yours put together within 13 month. Mine has been down since the stone age. It will probably take me another 6 months or so just get the body work completed. Chicago winters is the blame for all this

Sure wish I can write a novel like you all can. It is always nice to read about other projects.

Keep up the great work.

[Tom M]

39Super,

I envy you. You have yours put together within 13 month. Mine has been down since the stone age. It will probably take me another 6 months or so just get the body work completed. Chicago winters is the blame for all this

Sure wish I can write a novel like you all can. It is always nice to read about other projects.

Keep up the great work.

[Clipper47]

39Super, I agree with Tom in that I envy you. I bought my '47 thinking it would be an OK daily driver and ended up practically rebuilding the entire car over a period of 4 years with much of the same work required as you did on your '39. It still is a long way from being 100% but at least it is on the road. You are not alone!

[Clipper47]

39Super, I agree with Tom in that I envy you. I bought my '47 thinking it would be an OK daily driver and ended up practically rebuilding the entire car over a period of 4 years with much of the same work required as you did on your '39. It still is a long way from being 100% but at least it is on the road. You are not alone!

[Guest 39Super8]

Dave and Tom,

Hey guys, thanks for your kind words. The car is far from done, I have to do a water pump this weekend, and I am waiting for axle & pinion seals. It is drivable, and Debbie and I are finally able to go for enjoyable rides. I am going to maintain the car in a state of “historical preservation”. Translation: not going to do a ground up restoration.

I am not sure which has been more fun, doing the car, or this thread! LOL

Thanks guys!

Jim

[Guest 39Super8]

Dave and Tom,

Hey guys, thanks for your kind words. The car is far from done, I have to do a water pump this weekend, and I am waiting for axle & pinion seals. It is drivable, and Debbie and I are finally able to go for enjoyable rides. I am going to maintain the car in a state of “historical preservation”. Translation: not going to do a ground up restoration.

I am not sure which has been more fun, doing the car, or this thread! LOL

Thanks guys!

Jim