Packard Six 433 Club Sedan

[26pack]

Hello fellow Packard owners!

I am in the process of restoring a 1926-27 fourth series Packard Six Club Sedan. Yes, the beast will rise and run. THIS summer. I hope.

Anyway, I have a lot of questions and I am hoping I can get some help.

First, the engine needs help. Cracked block, bad pitting on cam and crank shaft, connecting rods, rollers for the lifters, camshaft sprocket, etc. I have been looking into trying to find parts or a rebuilt engine as opposed to spending the bucks (potentially big ones!) to get this engine rebuilt. I have had some leads but they didn't pan out (thanks for the lead B. Kinker but the engine was a 1928 six). So, does anyone have any leads on a rebuilt engine or parts? Are some of the parts from a 1927 eight interchangeable (like the rollers, etc?). How about a later (ie 1928) six engine?

Once I get my Packard running (and I will!! I promise!!), what sort of gas should I use in it? I have heard all sorts of info on this point. Some say use a lead additive, others say don't, that given the relatively poor quality of gas back then, regular unleaded should be fine. Comments? Advice?

I have also heard that today's gas can saturate the cork (or whatever) end of the gas sending unit in the tank and that its better to replace this part with an after market one (the float, that is). Any comments or suggestions here?

Bijur lubricator-should I clean it before using it? If so, how? Run some Marvel Mistery Oil through it? What if one or more of the ends is plugged up? Should I take it off and soak it in kerosese or something to try to clean it out? Also, once it works, do I use 50 weight oil in it?

Thanks for any help you can give me.

[Pierce66]

Sounds like you have a bit of work ahead of you. Where is what "block" cracked. The grey-iron cylinder block, or the aluminum crankcase? Either CAN be welded, so dont give up if you cant find a replacement engine.

I cant recall whether the six of that era had off-set crank-shaft counter-weights. If so, they have to come off to grind the crank-shaft. Crankshafts HAVE to be perfectly in spec. No tolerance for error. Again, a job for a firm that specializes in this stuff. You need a machine shop that can figure out how to put "insert" type rod bearings in the rods. Poured babbit DID work under the driving conditions of the 1920's, when it was rarely possible to go over 35 mph, and when you did, not for long periods of time. On long-stroke engines, poured babbit is an invitation to screw up a freshly re-built engine BIG TIME.

Dont worry about modern gas or oil. They are VASTLY supeior than what was available in the old days. Only problem is 'vapor lock', caused by the much much higher "Ried Vapor Pressure" of today's fuels - so an electric fuel pump, mounted as close to the gas tank, and as low as possible, is a "must" for warm weather driving. I'd fix the vacuum tank up just for show.

I cant recall when the last six was built...if recollection serves, there was no six in 1928 - that was the year they introduced its replacement for the lower priced line of Packard cars, the so called "standard eight".

I am a bit of a purist - while the '28 "standard eight" would probably fit in your chassis, I personally would not alter the car. It is what it is, and should be respected as a historical artifact ( by now the guys who read "Cheif's" remarks to the lady with the Caddy, have figured out the whole thing was a "put on" to smoke out the LEGITIMATE car buffs in here...!).

As for cam rollers - you will find the arms and rollers themselves are the same-well - SHOULD be the same - my recollection is there was some "in year production changes" that COULD give you fits..obviously, the mounting platforms are different given the different cylinder config.

Dont be bashful to ask questions...the more questions that are asked...the more everyone learns - including me !

Dog Spot

[26pack]

Thanks for the info. As for the engine, I'm a purist just like you. I won't even put a 1928 six in the car (1928, the 5th series, is the last year Packard made the six, i think). My question, however, was whether the rollers, connecting rods, etc (obviously not the camshaft or crank shaft)from the 1927 eight would fit in the 1927 six.

Thanks again.

[Guest BillP]

Note that this dogspot/pierce66/whatever is an old poster here who has been banned a number of times and reappears under new aliases. His advice is free and as with such is worth it, as is the following:

It is implied that an engine fitted with babbitt bearings is effectively a hand grenade, in danger of detonating at any moment. This is rubbish and a disservice not only to the hobby and trusting owners but also to the rebuilding industry.

There are thousands of examples of servicable, reliable engines in operation that are equipped as original with poured bearings. Babbitt bearings are in successful service in industrial and manufacturing operations around the globe under severe service.

I have a Packard in my garage with 65,000 miles on the original Babbitt bearings; rods and mains. It has been cared for and it runs well. In 1928, Cadillac test driver Bill Rader drove a LaSalle for 951 miles non-stop, except for gas, oil & tires at an average speed of 95.3 miles per hour. No mention is made of stopping every few hours to dump in a couple pounds of lead, so presumably it was not required.

To put it kindly, Petey66 is misinformed.

[Guest Albert]

As the preavious post, the crank & camshaft can be hard chromed and turned, the crank case can be welded as well as the block. If the crack is in the cylinder area it can be bored over sized and resleaved to match the rest. As far as parts go check out Hemmings Motor News, Kanters and Egge Maching shop for Pistons. Babbit Bearings will work if done correctly for many years as its unlikely you will be racing the car. An as the oter poster said modern oils are much better, as far as leaded gas goes you don't need it... Leaded Gas did not come on the market till the 50's so what did they run the cars on before that time?? you could have hardened seats install while the block is being done. I have a 54 Patrician that i put back on the road in march of this year after sitting 20 years, Did a valve job to free up some sticky valves and have been driving it ever since to the tune of over 2600 miles in 5 months, and driving it at the national meet as a service car..

[Pierce66]

For Bill P:

Chevrolet got away with poured babbit bearings until 1952 because it was a short stroke engine, with cars that were not THAT low geared, and, of course, road speeds were lower. Reciprocating loads were much MUCH lower than in engines like the old "in line" Packards.

To my knowledge, no automotive manufacturer - NONE anywhere would DARE use poured babbit bearings in any power-plant rod application today. If you are really sincere in your belief of the acceptability of poured babbit, my suggestion is you write a paper for the S.A.E. Journal.

In the case of Packard, poured babbet is a particularly bad choice, even for driving at speeds that would be considered modest by today's standards. Packard rods have more space between the finished surface of the rod bearing, and the "backing" of the rod, leading to greater opportunity for "pound out". Packard tried very hard to solve the "poured babbit pound-out" problem, going off in a number of directions, including, but not limited to oil coolers, and finally those beautiful finned rod caps that appeared in '34, just before they gave up on the practice, and started using the "insert" type rod bearing. Some of our Packard buffs may be aware of the "World's Fair Speed Record" Packard did as a sales "promo" with a "new" 1935 Standard Eight, to demonstrate how, when a car is equipped with modern "insert type" rod bearings, it can be run at extreme speeds all day (and night) without harm.

The industry - wide introduction of the "insert" type rod bearing in the 1930's, in my view, was a land-mark and major event, because it permitted higher compression, higher bearing "wiping" speeds, and higher crank-pin loads, thus permitting power-plant designers to come up with the high rpm high power-per-lb. of machinery that we have today.

Bill - you may mean well, but your information does a dis-service to those who want to actually drive their old cars. Remember, not only are we dealing with VERY long stroke engines in the case of Packards of that era, we are also dealing with extremely high reciprocating loads on the bearings, owing to low gearing. When a poured-babbet rod bearing fails on one of these long-stroke engines, it usually ruins the crank-pin, meaning still another engine-tear down.

There is a wealth of information on the "hows and whys" the industry gave up on poured babbit, how durability in service increased, found in SAE Journals during that era. I strongly recommend to you and others reading these posts, that you go browsing thru old SAE Journals. Even tho written by "technicals" for "technicals", you will find them fairly reading, and most certainly will straighten out your mis-conceptions. Copies of the old SAE Journals can be found in just about any medium-sized city's library.

We do not serve our fellow car buffs well if we waste time in personality disputes. Let's see what we can learn from each other; much more fun and efficient use of our fellow hobbyist's time.

Dog Spot

[Guest BillP]

Petey66-

Do you never tire of attempting to fog your responses in technical jargon and redirecting your correspondent's attention to a study program in a large city library? How many times have we seen this as a substitute for a sensible series of comments? And quit copying my clever insults, come up with your own, if you please. Furthermore, I would think that a fellow of your age, and a high falutin lawyer to boot would at least know his way around a dictionary. Try to set a better example, at least before you get banned again.

My thought on babbitt (study how I spelled that) bearings, contrary to yours, is that, and without going into all your unnecessary smokescreen, these old engines will run fine with them, and it is not needed to butcher them up to put in shell bearings out of some modern engine. You can blabber on about SAE this and that forever but you are wrong as far as these hobby engines are concerned, when operated in reasonable conditions.

If you run an engine as you claim to, then I guess you can expect problems.

I agree about the personality dispute thing: haven't you been excused?

[Pierce66]

For BILLp and ALBERT :

Hi, guys - NOT picking on you personally - just curious. Exchanging ideas is how we learn from one another.

Hey..BillP. A 1920's era La Salle going an AVERAGE of 95 mph ? Can you tell us more about this ? This dosn't jibe with my own knowledge of what middle-priced cars of that era could produce in the way of performance - in fact, I dont know of ANY General Motors car, even the biggest, most powerful, and most expensive ones, of the late 1920's that had either the rear axle ratios, or the raw power, to hit anywhere NEAR 95 mph. What am I missing ?

Hey ALBERT. Where did you get the idea that leaded gasoline didn't come on the market until the 1950's "?

"Dog Spot"

[Guest BillP]

Petey66-

For details, check your local library.

[Pierce66]

Hi Bill:

First of all..I aint no "hi flautin" lawyer. I am retired, and now enjoy being a LOW faultin car bum !

Second of all, there aint no library around here - at my ranch, out here in the middle of no-where (far west side of Hollis Hills, Long Island, New Yerk), my local buddies and I just shoot jack rabbets, chew tabacky, and drink beer (afterwards we shoot the cans..!) We aint got no tyme for no ditchinaries...!

Seriously, BillP, I am aware of a number of extreme speed test runs with very exotic machinery PRIOR to even the early 1920's. But you have to wait until the introduction of the mighty "J" series Duesies before you will find the rear axle ratios, and power, sufficient to drive a production car over 100 mph. Please do NOT interpet this as making fun of the La Salle. It was a brilliant move by General Motors to "push" an upper mid-income car. It was certainly a good buy for the money. Of course it would not be fair to compare its performance with the much more expensive luxury cars of its day. But, c'mon, Bill P - 95 miles an hour ? AVERAGE of 95 miles an hour ? I'd like to know a bit more about that !

Now - here's something interesting. I just took delivery of a pretty well restored '28 Rolls Phantom. This thing has a 460 cu. in over-head valve engine, that was gone thru by a firm called MacDOnalds, apparently well known in the Rolls groups. Incidentally, they assure me they simply wont do an engine unless they can go to "insert" type rod bearings.

Of course the motor in this thing, like all motors from the old days, is "crippled" by a low compression ratio, made necessary by the low octane fuels of the day. So while it is MUCH, MUCH more powerful than ANYTHING I am aware of in production in those years I rather doubt if it produces more than, say, around 300 ft lbs of torque, and about 150 h.p. Anyway, what it DOES have, is something that absolutely astonishes me. The thing is HIGH geared. BONE STOCK. The guy who ordered it new, was some kind of speed buff. Thing has about a 3.23 ratio, and THAT is on top of 21" wheels ! Even in LOW gear, it sort of "bogs". I am not crazy enough to see what its top speed is on the so called "reporduction" white walls now on it - but I would not be surprised if it would do close to ninety, or about 15-18 mph faster than any other car of that era of which I am aware. Of course it is silly to compare a twenty thousand dollar Rolls with a $1,000 LaSalle, so this is just for info. only (to get the equiv. purchasing power, multiply those numbers by about 25). Point is - I just learned something about the 1920's - until driving this Rolls for the first time, I had NO idea that REALLY high axle ratios, were available, even as an "option", that many years ago ( no, GM did not have such an option then).

Woof !

[Guest BillP]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Seriously, BillP, I am aware of a number of extreme speed test runs with very exotic machinery PRIOR to even the early 1920's. But you have to wait until the introduction of the mighty "J" series Duesies before you will find the rear axle ratios, and power, sufficient to drive a production car over 100 mph. Please do NOT interpet this as making fun of the La Salle. It was a brilliant move by General Motors to "push" an upper mid-income car. It was certainly a good buy for the money. Of course it would not be fair to compare its performance with the much more expensive luxury cars of its day. But, c'mon, Bill P - 95 miles an hour ? AVERAGE of 95 miles an hour ? I'd like to know a bit more about that !

So what are you saying? It didn't happen?

Now - here's something interesting. I just took delivery of a pretty well restored '28 Rolls Phantom. This thing has a 460 cu. in over-head valve engine, that was gone thru by a firm called MacDOnalds, apparently well known in the Rolls groups. Incidentally, they assure me they simply wont do an engine unless they can go to "insert" type rod bearings.

We had a Springfield Rolls of similar vintage several years ago. Ran fine on original bearings, I guess the geniuses at MacDonalds hadn't gotten to it yet.

</div></div>

[26pack]

OK guys, fight nice.

On the engine, the crack is in the block, not the head. There is only one crack (yup, did the old magnaflux on it). The crack is several inches long and runs up the wall of the number 2 cylinder, across the top and down into one of the valve seats. Yes, this can be fixed, I have had it checked by a very reputable company which has rebuilt many Packard engines, and I have an estimate for doing the repairs correctly.

I have new pistons. Many of the other internal parts, however, are badly pitted. The crank shaft can be fixed, the company knows all about balancing the thing (having done it many times), and the cam shaft can be fixed. The connecting rods are badly pitted (again, can be repaired) and the valve rollers are also pitted. These may have to be remanufactured (ie new ones made from scratch using the old ones as a model). As you can see, this is running into some serious greenbacks to do and hense, my inquiries as to whether I can find an already rebuilt engine or replacement parts (and whether any parts from other Packard engines are interchangeable with these parts).

Funny, I have located rebuilt 1924 and 1928 Packard Six engines, and a couple of 1927 eights. But no 1927 fourth series sixes. Oh well, if I have to bite the bullet on this one and pay for the rebuild, I have no chioce.

Now for my other questions. What about replacing the cork float for the sending unit in the gas tank? Now is the time to do it since its not back in the tank yet. I do recall someone mentioning that these cork floats will not work very well with today's gasoline bacause the cork just gets saturated and, well, stops floating. Comments? Suggestions??

Also, any comments or suggestions on my questions on the Bijur lubricator?

Thanks in advance to all of you out there in Packardland.

[Guest BillP]

The Bijur system can be flushed out and if a particular branch or fitting is clogged it is easily remedied. The last I heard, Bijur was still in business and it may be worth contacting them as to a suggested lube or consult an old shop manual. Be advised that it acts like a flow-through system, that is, it flows through the lubricated points and out onto your garage floor, so erring on the heavier (more viscous) side, consistent with adequate lubrication, is less of a mess. I've heard of some people dummying the system up and using zerks to avoid the mess but that's cheating in my book.

Note: I sort of recall reading that there is a changeable orifice in the tank or somewhere that acts to restrict flow if the customer was griping about too much usage. Check your shop manual/bulletins or say if you can't find & I'll see if I can resurrect info.

Can't help with the engine parts, you may be better off making them as you'll know they're right.

[Guest]

Peter: Your comments about just buying a 1928 Rolls Phantom I. Your claims about the engines horse power and torque are plain cow manure, just like what you are full of.

When the Phantom I was introduced in 1925 the engine was rated at 100 horse power and by 1929 the last year of production was rated at 125 horse power.

Now if your actualy do own a Phatom I, which I doubt you do. What is the wheel base, produced in America or England, whom was the coach builder, how many speed forward does the transmission in your car have.. I would like you to prove that the Phantom you purchased was $20,000 brand new. Ie what was the cost of the chassic, and what did the coach builder charge the customer for the body.

In June 1927 driver Bill Rader and riding mechanic Gus Bell took a standard LaSalle roster right from the assembly line and drove 951 miles in 10 hours at an average speed of 95.1 mph. Rader made nine pits stops in the Lasalle in that 10 hour period , the reason that the the record ended so soon was because of ruptured oil line. Turns out that Bill P is correct in his statement about the LaSalle. Seems to me that you should say to Bill that you are wrong and that he is right.

One word of advice Peter: If your answers are incorrect on the questions I have asked you about the Phantom I. I will publically humilate you in this forum

[WCraigH]

Hey Packard53. Pierce66 is the same ol' PFH, which we should all ignore. If we do that, then he will "go away", if not by his own volition, but by the moderator's choice. If you want to have a heated conversation with PFH, please do it off line and not clutter up this forum with same.

[Guest]

Hey WCraigH: YOU ARE NOT THE MODERATOR OF THIS FORUM.

[Guest BillP]

Good thoughts, Brian. Why the moderators haven't pulled the trigger ONCE AGAIN is beyond me. It is a pleasant goal to ignore him but hardly realistic for the very reason you have stated: new people come on here all the time and if Petey66 is left free to puke on them it ruins the place for everyone.

It has been said here a number of times how he provides valuable technical insights. I dispute this. Much of what he promotes as historical fact is opinion, hearsay or foolishness wrapped in techno-speak. Much of what I see from him presented as technical advice is plainly in error. No credible references are cited other than the SAE journals we are often encouraged to study, and anything other than a heavy Packard is not only never heard of by him, it is ridiculed. This is not enlightened or informed discourse, it is cartoon talk that I can do without.

He has been banned numerous times with cause. A man would get the message and walk away.

[Pierce66]

Craig - I disagree with you as to having disagrements - they can be the source of valuable information. PACK 53 seems to be well-informed on some Packard issues that I never heard of until he donated his time to educate us. For example, I found the information he provided about the "straight" or "in line" Packard Twelve to be fascinating. And quite upsetting to my own prejudices..!

I'd always thought of Packard's legendary "Vincent" and his research team to be "gods" - I learned from Packard 53 that they too, could go off on silly tangents that made no sense whatsoever.

Being a bit suspicious about what is "posted", as Packard 53 most certainly is...is good for all of us. I do wish he'd be a BIT more friendly when he questions what he sees here. Why NOT ask people for further support about their "posts" ? Why not feel good about exchanging ideas ?

As for his info. on my Rolls Royce - he apparently has far better knowledge about these cars than I do. And again - his questioning, is what brings out new info. we should all welcome.

I was never much interested in pre-war Rolls - always thought of them as quite backward. This one has been an eye-opening experience for me; I obviously have much to learn. Woud love to see copies of the power output info. you have, Pack. 53 - I was always under the impression Rolls never EVER released that kind of info. The book that came with the car, apparently the "originaL, entitled BOOK OF INSTRUCTION FOR THE CARE OF ROLLS ROYCE MOTOR CARS" only has the so called "taxable" horsepower, which, as many of you know, has NOTHING to do with power output - is merely a calculation based on displacement, for revenue purposes.

I can tell you fellows this - over the years, I have driven, worked on, etc. many different luxury cars of the 1920's, and again, this "new toy" of mine, well..NOTHING I am aware of in t erms of production cars of that era. could catch it, EITHER in raw accelleration or top speed potential. But again, in all fairness, my understanding (Pack. 53 apparently knows the prices better than I do )...this thing costs many times more, and has a much larger displacement and more modern design engine (over-head valve and excellent "breathing" for the era) than the luxury cars of that era I am familiar with.

Again, Packard, Lincoln, Cadillac, Pierce Arrow, Chrysler Imperial, etc., all had around 380 cu in., MUCH lower gearing, NO high speed differential gear "option" (that I am aware of) didn't weigh that much less, and to top it off, much less efficient engine design.

Pack 53 - if you are seriously interested in my particular Rolls, there is quite a nice little write-up, ( showing my very car! )in a book a fellow showed me )sadly, only briefly, had no opportunity to make a copy) (which I HAVE to purchase, entitled "ROLLS ROYCE IN AMIERCA".

You asked about the body - since the car is a "Springfield", built here in the United States, (apparently some differences to the English Rolls) it is a Brewster, and it is called a "Picadilly" roadster ( Rolls apparently named its body styles after various locations in England). Wheel-base measures about 144".

I dont know if FANTASY JUNCTION (the sellers ) still has the very descriptive article and photos about it, but should you log on and find it (it is about page four (or was) in their "current inventory") you can see what it looks like. Or you can E mail me and I will send you some photos I just took, if that interests you.

Again - I think this forum is a price-less form of education for us to learn more about our hobby of old cars. I just cannot understand why some of you take disagrements about technical/historical info. as some kind of personal matter.

"Dog Spot"

[Pierce66]

Hi BH !

Yes - you are RIGHT. I love "Classic Coke"...especially when I order "Classic Chicken" at my local fast food joint (the owner has a Caprice Classic"...!

Dog Spot !

[Guest]

As you can see your posting asking for assistance with your Packard has been highjacked by others with a different agenda. Too bad that these chaps who have so much to offer in the way of experience and knowledge can't stay focused on the subject of the posting. I hope that you have gained some information from what has been offered so far vis a vis your Packard. Now I guess the topic has wandered off to discussions of someone's Springfield Rolls and LaSalle endurance tests not to mention the dreaded oft resurrected babbitt bearing controversy. So if your stomach can take it just sit back and enjoy the fireworks as I do! <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Pierce66]

Good point !

Dog Spot

[Guest]

Peter: the information you have given me about Rolls Royce can be obtained by using any good search engine on the world wide web. Still doesn't prove that you own a Rolls.

From the information that I have says that your claim of 150 hp that you stated is untrue. A person whom has had three different email address in the last two years, and gives false information as to his true name and his place residensce to the AACA, is a person not to be trusted on anything that he may state in this forum.

Seems like the email address you used before your current one given to the AACA was lakemodel200@aol.com. with residence listed as Paulden Arizona under the name Peter F. Hartmann.

Frankly Peter I have no time in dealing with people like you that gives false personal information about themselves.

[Pierce66]

Hi, '53 Pack....O.K..you found me out - I made all this stuff up just to annoy YOU ! So my Sears Riding mower isnt QUITE a Rolls Royce..but it sure looks cool with that Packard duck on the hood...! I converted its transmission over to an Ultramatic to give it that extra "jump" for stop-light drag racing...!

P.S. Again, if you are seriously interested in my cars, E mail me and I will send you pictures of my vehicles. Wouldn't a Sears Riding Mower look great with one of those J.C. Whitney "ducks" on the hood ?

P.P.S.

Call up MAPQUEST on your computer, type in HOLLIS HILLS, QUEENS, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK and look at the corner of Hills Hills Terrace and Richland Ave. If you cant find it, look at the UNION TURNPIKE where it goes under the CLEARVIEW Expressway, just north of the Grand Central Parkway. Now follow the ClearView Expressway NORTH about one block. You'l see RICHLAND Ave. You win a chocolate chip cookie IF you can tell me what you would see if you stood at that intersection and looked north AND I'll even answer more questions about the Rolls !

Dog Spot

[Pierce66]

typo error in above post...not "Hills Hills Terrace"...it is HOLLIS HILLS Terrace. AND....if you can guess what HOLLIS HILLS TERRACE was called before it was re-named, a duck will come down and pay you a hundred bucks..!

Dog spot

[26pack]

Get and stay the F@#K off of this board. You are a useless, clueless pile of crap with nothing to do in life but bother people. I asked reasonable questions, I wanted reasonable answers. No, I do not care about (nor do I believe you ever owned) a Rolls. And yes, you are such a ranting wacko that I cannot in good faith believe anything you say. Which is a problem, because (maybe by mistake) you might actually get close to a correct answer. This will undoubtedly result in yet another rant by you--who cares, except that you keep taking up time and space. My only advice to you is to stay on your meds.

[Pierce66]

Charming post. Sure to attract more people interested in discussing automotive matters...

Woof

[Guest BillP]

I was thinking about the cork float. I don't know what's in my '34 but it still works, I guess it's the factory one. I'm not saying anything that isn't obvious but you could either coat it with something impervious or replace it with a float out of a newer junkyard tank, made for newer gas. That shouldn't be a difficult project and it would keep you from this possible failure.

You don't see many of these sixes around; I am really interested in how it comes along for you.

[Pierce66]

By the 30's, my understanding is just about everyone was using brass floats, which I strongly recommend. I would bet you can find something in the way of a brass float that would have the right shape to fit. I would also look around and see what carbuerator float valves and seats would work.

Which reminds me - what about fuel delivery. Those old vacuum tanks can work very well, until the car gets heat soaked from a long run even at modest speeds, and/or parades and car events. That's when modern fuels, with their much higher vapor pressures, often start vapor locking. This is aggravated by fuel delivery systems that have suction, placing the fuel in the lines under lower pressure.

My suggestion is restore the vacuum tank cosmetically, install a modern brass float and float valve and seat ( so it can handle the 4-6 lbs. of modern electric fuel pumps ) and put a modern fuel pump as CLOSE to the gas tank, and as LOW as possible.

WOOF from Dog Spot

[26pack]

I wish I could remember where I read about the cork float. I seem to recall the problem was with a 1920-something Packard or Ford. Anyway, if I can find a replacement part I think I'll play it safe and use that.

As for the vacuum tank, it has been restored and mounted. For cosmetic purposes only. I am using a 6 volt fuel pump.

Funny think about those Packard sixes from the 20's. Packard sold a ton of them. And, while I have found good engines from 1924, 25 and 28, I have not been able to find one from 1927 (the Fourth Series). So, I might just have to bite the bullet and have my motor rebuilt. Now, how do I explain this to my wife???

[Guest BillP]

Might be possible to go along as a passenger couple on a tour in the back of a similar car- maybe old car enthusiam will soothe pocketbook ouch.

Do you have a good shop to do your work? What's your approximate location?

[26pack]

I am in New York, and the car is in Youngstown, Ohio. I have a very good shop doing the repairs. They have been around for decades and have rebuilt many engines (including Packards). So, I know they will do a good job. Its just the hit to the bank account that hurts. That and the fact that the engine was supposed to have been rebuilt when I bought the car but the guy who rebuilt it is now nowhere to be found.

Anyway, it was my wife's idea that I get a hobby...

[Guest]

I seem to recall that my '47 Nash had a cork float and the gas guage always worked fine the 4 years I owned and ran the car in the 1990's.

[Pierce66]

Hi Clipper !

I disagree with your 'post' - at least, as it applies to TODAY's fuel.

I attended OSHKOSH ( the world-famous aviation buff event in Wisconson) last year; had an opportunity to talk to several different fuel company's tech. reps. The news is not good. Both aviation and surface gas as of 2001, has aromics that will not work out with the various "soft" products of previous years. I am particularly annoyed by this, as I have a freshly over-hauled fuel bladder for my aircraft (well, over-hauled and "yellow tagged" in 2001, at a cost of many hundreds of dollars) , which they tell me will fail very quickly in service with the new fuels ( it was actually manufactured in the 1970's).

So - the bad news is, things like cork, and many rubber products manufactured prior to the 1980's (when they first started introducing rubber products that can handle the aromics now in our fuels ) are going to fail.

I recommend to everyone who thinks he has old rubber and/or cork products in the fuel system, to get em out. Given all the varied sizes of brass carb. floats, and the many different types of fuel level seats and "needles", a car buff shouldn't have too much trouble coming up with something that will enable him to keep his induction system "original" from the outside, but useable with today's gasoline.

WOOF !

[jrbartlett]

My experience with babbitt bearings -- '29 Packard Super Eight with repoured rod bearings in 1965 pounded out one of them soon afterward, but this was the result of driving fast (too fast) on a freeway. We repoured that one, and these same bearings have been in the car ever since, but the current owner does not drive it much. Then in a '35 Auburn I pounded out the original rod bearings, again through freeway driving. When I rebuilt the engine we converted to inserts and have had no problems since. The mains are still babbitt -- people tell me that you tend to have problems only with babbitt rod bearings, not mains. And believe it or not, modern turbines still use babbitt bearings. Of course, they aren't subjected to the pounding.

As for Rolls Royce, all you have to do is look over one of the bigger models from the 20s or early 30s to see that you're looking at one superb car. The Rolls pictured on the Fantasy Junction site was absolutely beautiful.

On the Lasalle speed run, I thought I read years ago that they used a high-speed rear end along with a high-lift cam, and they took the fenders off. I can't recall for sure. Packards offered a 3.33-to-one ratio in their speedster models, about 1930, if I recall right. I don't know what the others were offering.

On the fuel sending unit, is this in fact one of the air pressure sensing devices? That's what our '29 had on it.

[Pierce66]

Hi, Jbart:

Yes - agree with you as to poured MAIN bearings. That is considered acceptable shop practice amongst knowledgable machinists today, for the obvious reason that mains dont have to handle either the reciprocating loads or the much higher "wiping" speeds the connecting rods are subject to.

Yes - even what today we call modest driving, is HORRIBLY fast driving by the standards anb driving conditions the engineers had in mind when these cars were new.

The shock loads on the long stroke engines like the Packards this fellow is seeking advice on, even at modest speeds, are FAR greater than could ever be experienced by the modern engine even at triple digit speeds, given the stroke and gearing differences.

With a COMBINATION of "insert" type connecting rod bearings, AND a high-speed rear axle and/or over-drive (a number of after-market overdrives are on the market) we old car buffs can have a lot of fun getting our cars out on trips where people can see them, learn about them, and talk about them. Sounds like this fellow who started this "thread" wants advice on how to set up a DRIVER, not a "trailer queen". Good luck to him - we need more guys like that in the hobby!

Dog Spot

[26pack]

Given all of the discussion about repairing an engine, babbitting, etc, I wonder whether it is worth thr risk of just repairing the crack and using the original parts again. The pistons are new, and assuming they still fit, and assuming there are no other defects in the parts (cracks in the crank shaft, warping, etc), just reuse the old parts (maybe replace the valves). The engine has about 72,000 miles on it and ran fine before the block cracked. So, the question is, how much pitting can a Packard Six take before the repairs must be made? FYI, I do plan on using this car as a driver, not a trailer queen, and although there is pitting, I have seen worse (in running engines).

[Pierce66]

regarding "pitting"

Welding up cracked blocks is an accepted shop proceedure - problem is - surrounding metal MAY be distored, so a re-bore would be a wise move - which in turn might mean the pistons you have wouldn't be large enough. Remember, you have a LONG STROKE engine, in which piston speeds are MUCH higher, much more severe than in a modern engine, even tho your crankshaft rpm's are lower (assuming you drive at speeds consistant with the year of your car ! ).

As for pitting - definitely NOT GOOD. Although not the best shop proceedure, a good honing of a bore that is pitted, can smooth it up enough so that modern piston rings could get you an acceptable "seal" even with a few pits that were too deep to get out with a "cross-hatch" hone.

The problem is - you said something about pits on sliding surfaces such as cam followers and the crank-shaft. These are areas that are particularly fussy. There are shops that can handle the grinding, and, if necessary, "hard chroming" of these surfaces. We have already discussed the issue of connecting rod bearings - NO rod bearing will survive, ESPECIALLY given the brutal shock loadings and extreme "sliding speeds" inherent in a long-stroke engine, unless the crank-shaft surface is within spec.

You say you want a "driver". Bad news is - there is no "back-yard - easy way" to make a car a reliable driver. You are going to have to "bite the bullet" and do it right.

Keep the questions and comments coming. Again, there are no stupid questions...only thing that is stupid..would be to go ahead WITHOUT taking advantage of the experience of others who have been there.

In my own case, I do NOT claim to be an "expert" on anything! I am still learning from the exchange of ideas that makes this forum a valuable asset.

Dog Spot

[26pack]

Updates on my Packard project...

I have decided to part with the bucks and have the engine rebuilt. The shop doing it is very reputable, having rebuilt many engines. And, despite the comments of one, the connecting rods will be babbitted. Paul, the guy rebuilding the engine, tells me that with modern babbitting materials I should have no problems, that the key is to insure a correct fit, and he has not had the pounding out problem alluded to earlier in this thread.

Please, this is NOT!!! an invitation to further rantings on this point. No. Nicht. Nein. Nyet. If you still can't control it, please rant on the tech board.

I do, however, have some questions that maybe you all out there in Packardland can help me with. I have spoken with a number of peoople who have or have had Packards from the 1926-28 time frame with the 6 cylinder engine. They all tell me that the car will cruise at 50 mph (the 27 and 28 models easier, of course, because of the increased horsepower) and Packard advertisements of the time state that the car could go 70 mph. I still would rather not do that and if I'm going to take it on a highway (and keep it at 50 mph max) I was thinking of installing either an overdrive or a high speed rear end.

So, which do you all out there think is better--the overdrive or the high speed rear end? From what I have been able to determine, either one should do the trick.

Thanks much.

[Pierce66]

Installing an over-drive is not a major problem. You have plenty of space to do it. I recommend you build a sub-frame for the overdrive, then RUBBER MOUNT the sub frame. Bolting the over-drive rigidly to a metal frame WILL transfer gear noise, and that can be an annoyance.

Yours is a fairly heavy car, with a motor that is not all that powerful. The "stock" final drive ratio would be just right for modest city driving. With a high speed rear end, you might find the car a bit sluggish.

Good luck !

Dog Spot

[Peter J.Heizmann]

Gents...

26Pack started a ligitimate thread.

Take a good look at where some of you have taken it.

For some reason beyond my comprehension, there are certain people who absolutely do not know how to utilize the Rants & Raves section. They continue to ruin decent threads.

Now, if the shoe fits, wear it gents. I will not hesitate to ban. Not going to put up with it. Should I do so, loud and clear, do not bother e-mailing me. Telling you now, you will have to present your case to the Internet Committee to be allowed back, not me.

Regards,

Peter J. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />