Jump to content

Wanted: 1932 Packard Parts and Parts Car


colonel vincent
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi Jeremy,

I am debating on doing a 1932 Packard 900 shovelnose rumbleseat coupe project. Would your engine, gearbox, and other parts be compatible? It would save some time if your parts are usable as this car is pretty sad right now.

Email me at diecuts@aol.com when you get a chance about those mentioned and the 'other stuff'

Cheers,

diecuts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 902 engine is a bit different than the 900. Trans is the same I believe. If you are serious about doing a 900 I can likely supply you with a good bit of what you need. We are currently rewooding 5 900 and 1001 convertibles. If there is one car I know something about it is the 900. I am happy to give you all the free advice you can handle, just ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the unrestored 900 Light 8s I have seen sold in the last 10 years or so have traded hands at aound $24000 for unrestored project cars. Some more and I actually can't think of any that changed hands for less. As with all Packards it's the parts that kill you. If I were looking to buy one I would want to know that it had the correct carb, air cleaner and preheater along with the correct taillights, bumpers, wire wheels and convertible top parts. There are several of these cars around that were coupes to begin with but are now masquerading as convertibles. If you are seriously interested in the car give me a call and I'll be happy to guide you thru it if you're unfamiliar with the 900. Very few parts from a 902 would interchange with the 900. Restoring any early 30's open Packard is not for the faint of heart. Runningboard covers are $750, a rebuildable carb would set you back 500+, an original fuel pump maybe $600 or more, etc. Sheetmetal parts such as fenders are virtually unobtainable so you generally have to use what comes with the car. A complete rewood of the body would run $4500 at least. A complete engine rebuild would likely consume $4500-6000. I would love to see another 900 on the road. I am the Roster Keeper for the 900 for the CCCA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We also have 2 1001's we are working on so I can answer your question with some authority. Other than the basic body shell, doors and convertible top assembly, very little actually interchanges. Fenders are different, rumble lid lock is different, dash and instruments different. The hoods and obviously the grills differ. The engines are different as are the carbs, heads, etc. The 900 used the updraft Detroit Lubricator while the '33 is a downdraft system. The frames do not interchange. The wheelbase differs by 1/2". The early 1001 cars used 900 bumpers, the later ones didn't. The transmissions and rear ends are the same, I believe. The wire wheels differ as well. The 900 had adjustable spoke wheels, the 1001 did not. I suppose starters, generators and distributors do interchange, at least functionally. Headlight buckets are different but only in the name engraved into the shell. Headlight to fender mounting brackets differ considerably. Taillight stand and buckets interchange, lenses do not. All in all they are different cars, more different that I suspected before I had the opportunity to closely examine and disassemble both side by side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intersting observation. I thought the 900 shared more with the 1001, but I had not done any investigation. I always felt my 32 was an awkward year for sharing parts, as when looking for various Packard parts I would see ads indicating that a certain parts would fit both a 900 and a 1001 but not a 902-905. I assume that it was because the 900 like the 32 Twin Six was introduced some time in the year after the 902/3 were so they shared more parts in common.

I was told by some one also that a downdraft carb is correct on a 32 as Packard offered that as a retrofit option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We worked on a late '32 900 that was fitted with a downdraft carb setup, apparently original. In many ways the 900 was a testing platform for features not introduced on other Packards until much later. The angle set rear end, rubber spring mounts rather than the Bijur system, lower body lines and windshield design and lighter, more streamlined construction were all innovations on the 900 which became standard on later models. With the 1001, Packard kept the smaller, lower body but reinstituted the tombstone grill and the Bijur chassis lube system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the 900 convertible is one of the best values for a person wanting a convertible coupe Packard of the early 30s. Other than the shovel nose which I think you either lover or hate, it's a much cheaper car to acquire today with great styling and features, and it is recognized as a full classic. I think hard tops are a much harder car of any marque to stay right side up when restoring as it cost about as much to do a hardtop as a soft top but have much less of a resale value.

Yeah I've seen that 900 on the web for $24K. Makes the 35 V12 for 46K I found look like a bargain though you could go broke with the V12. But then you would have a V12. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Done a little research, enough to realize that Packards are a lot more complicated that what first meets the eye. I appreciate your help, having 2 jaguars, XK120s, costly parts are nothing new, but all the variations on body styles are.

On the Hemmings shovelnose, does it look legit, the body more or less correct? A few parts missing are just part of the fun, but major stuff wrong is just too much. I love restoring old cars as a hobby, and would do most of the work myself. Estimated costs to do the Hemmings car are roughly, $6000 engine, $4000 top, $7000 interior, $3000 chassis, $7000 body work and paint, $12000 chrome, $2000 misc. $41000 plus 24000 or $65,000 for a shovelnose. Too much??

Most of the fun is doing it, breaking even would be nice too. The Detroit area has lots of support for Packards, after all, this is where they were built! One of them restored a shovelnose for someone out East awhile back and it felt great to sit behind the wheel of that car. I happen to love the 'look'. Does it look legit enough or can a better one be found down the road? Pic attached of a recently done 1939 MGTA tickford

Thanks for your help, Lee

post-52062-143137933063_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to be an honest presentation of a good restoration candidate. Nice to see a soft top coupe that hasn't been turned into a convertible. The missing air cleaner and preheater is a $1500 or so problem. The carb appears to be the correct Detroit Lubricator. Can't see the fuel pump. Two of the instruments mounted in the dash are incorrect as is the coil. If you purchase the car I likely can supply most of the missing parts. Remember that this engine is a 9 main bearing with babbitted bearings, expensive to have done. We've done 4 or 5 over the years. Nothing very tricky about rebuilding the engine, just expensive. Car certainly looks ugly as is. The bumpers pictured appear correct. Correct taillight lenses are tough to find, as is the T handle for the rumble seat. The horns pictured are obviously incorrect. The red knob in the center of the steering wheel controls the semi-automatic trans/free wheeling. Engage this feature and the clutch pedal is sucked to the floor by vacuum every time you take your foot from the accelerator pedal. The car also has ride control/adjustable shocks. Everything I see in the pics except for the items mentioned above appear authentic and correct for the car. Let us know how you make out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to add that Steve Snyder, at The Vault, is a good, long-time, second-generation collector that can be trusted when describing one of his cars (except when he calls touring cars "phaetons"). I've known him for probably 30 years. His dad used to be editor of the Classic Car Club's magazine, "Classic Car."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$10000 engine, $4000 top, $10000 interior, $3000 chassis, $15000 body work and paint, $10000 chrome gauges $2000

woodwork ? Missing parts $5000

I did some changing of your numbers. I'm basing this numbers on a show car restoration though the engine is that show or not.

About a year ago, a 32 shovel nose sold for about $20K on ebay. Convertible shovel noses I think are in the 70-90K range so you might just be better off finding one of those already done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the costing input. Do your numbers include labor? Mine were based more on just materials (exluding chromework) with my labor essentially free for doing the bodywork,chassis, paintwork, sewing of interior (leather), sewing and fitting of top, having major engine components sent out for machining but doing the actual assembly myself. Is it more complicated than a MGSA engine or xk120 engine? About 700 to 1000 hours of fun at least. Someone mentioned a coupe. I am strictly a convertible person. At 6'4", the top is usually down. I rechecked the ad, it is a coupe. Darn!!!

Cheers, Lee Jacobsen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The engine is far less complicated than an XK engine. The Coupe is actually a rare 900 body style these days. Most of the coupes out there have been changed to convertibles and the changeover is virtually undetectable if the data plate # is changed. Wish I could afford another car. The price is fair in my estimation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...