Thanks Howard. I'll read through those shortly.

I have a Chilton's (?) manual but idk if it goes back that far.

From the service letter and DP's data it's clear that the water temp gauge indicates backwards compared to the other two, but with the same range. At least for the gauge, this can be easily accomplished by physically reversing the assembly inside it during the manufacture process.

Therefore it may be assumed that the oil and gas gauges operate according to DP's data, just reversed. I.e. a high impedance at the sender gives a low gauge reading and vice versa.

It should be noted that all 3 gauges on the later cars followed this same pattern of high impedance = low reading. Actually I'm not certain on the oil pressure gauge, so maybe Howard can confirm that.

I think if there is a device that can trim both for an input threshold, and an output range, and can reverse the logic between input and output, it could be easily set up to make any sender work properly with any gauge. I'll have to see if I can come up with something. Of course, this would work not only for the 48-50, but the other obsolete types and also for all makes. Thr only assumption is that both scales are linear, so if I can make a decent "reverse exponential" device separate for 48-50 it may be best to do so.

With the help of the Three Hooligans, the front clip was removed and set safely aside. It took all of about a minute. Now there are quite a few things I can get done pretty easily. Pretty exciting!

Next step….get the radiator out and to a shop.

The first picture is my next door neighbor, better known as The Head Hooligan.

Well, that makes me feel better!! All new seals and gaskets now, install starts in a couple of weeks. Seems solid, see no excessive slop in wheel. Thanks again

Can't even imagine the "fun" you had with this as luggage!

Those look great! Hopefully, I won’t be too far down the road getting that done I want to get all the mechanical in good order, including new springs all around. Then, I’ll be moving on to the dash.

For completeness, here is what Motor's Manual, Fifteenth edition has to say about the operation of the Ford and King-Seeley temp, fuel, and oil gauges as used on 22-23 series. Packard used the single sender temp gauge implementation.

As an extra I kept the Stewart-Warner fuel gauge info visible. The fuel and oil gauges are magnetic type gauges and were used on 42-47 Clippers. In addition to the sender the magnetic gauge itself must also have a good ground to work. Fuel sender had an obsolete S-W range of l00 ohms empty and 0 ohms full. Suspect oil sender had the same ohm range but temp gauge on Clippers was the direct read mechanical pressure bulb style.

Attach file:

---

  22-23 K-S temp ga operation.jpg (570.16 KB)


  Fuel.jpg (825.35 KB)


  oil.jpg (685.01 KB)

HPH

I do not know for sure that all 3 senders have the same signaling scheme. I’m leaning toward ‘yes’, but only from a position of minimum production costs.

For the 22nd and 23rd series if the gauge pegs up-scale then the logic is identical. I believe the oil pressure gauge pegs down-scale, so the logic is not identical, but could be simply reversed. Selecting down-scale for the oil pressure could be an application of displaying the most alarming indication if an instrument error occurs.

Backing-up a bit . . . Howard dug-out the referenced Service Counselor. This same test procedure is in the ’54 manual (likely applicable 51-54). While the procedure seems to be the same the test results are for the applicable models for that manual.

Back to the production costs: If I was in the business of making Packard instrument gauges I would surely use the same heaters across the board, so your question about electrically identical is likely well founded. The sweep of the gauges seem to be the same, so the deflection of the bimetal is likely similar. The oil pressure logic change could be handled by reverse winding of the bimetal, or using the same bimetal with a linkage change. For the oil pressure sending unit ZERO pressure should have the greatest resistance (low/no heating current). I do not know if that sending unit operates via pulse width modulation, or variable resistance via diaphragm deflection. Again, if I was making the gauges I would lean to using the pulse width technique . . . however the oil pressure ‘sending unit’ is subjected to engine temperature, so that would need to be accommodated in the calibration.

dp

If it was black it would look like the Munsters vehicle.

Quote:

I appreciate it, though I'm not sure it would be needed. Since what I have in mind would be that someone can buy a generic sender with a linear response, and have that adapt as well as reasonable to the factory gauges.

The other thing is that, as far as I am aware, the usual rheostat senders have a low resistance when full and high when low. But David's chart is the opposite.

Edit: Actually seems like low ohm empty and high ohm full is the standard, at least for GM.

Quote:
HPH, I would think they are identical or at least be so close as to have any differences be insignificant. This service article has the mechanic use a fuel sender to test the oil and temp gauges so the signals from the other senders must be the same pulsing that I documented with the fuel sender.

As additional info, farther in that same service counselor the dimension differences between the 17 gallon and 20 gallon fuel senders is given. If a Ford sender is available from Dennis Carpenter it might be possible to verify or duplicate a needed Packard tank distance.

I have a NOS sender available for test. 403066 if memory serves...