To service the new Torsion-Level Suspension on 55th Series cars, the factory specified a special lubricant (P/N 474028) for the load arm link joints and the compensator planetary set. A redesign of the load arm links for the 56th Series eliminated the need for their lubrication, but this special grease was still required to service the compensator. While no periodic change of the compensator grease was required in normal use, the unit would need to be repacked after tear-down and re-assembly.

Yet, I doubt if any engineer ever envisioned that these cars would still be in use over 50 years later. As such, one has to wonder about the useful life of this special grease. Now, in the absence of the original grease, people are beginning to ask what to use. In fact, that very question came up some time ago, here, in a thread on "Compensator Grease":

https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=782&forum=3&post_id=5626#forumpost5626

...where Owen_Dyneto advised that a non-channeling grease was needed, and recommended Sta-Lube SL-3303, a moly disulfide grease fortified with graphite. I found that Sta-Lube was acquired in 1993 by CRC Industries, which provides the following info online:

SL3303 -- Synthetic Brake & Caliper Grease

Since the term "non-channeling" was new to me, I looked it up and found that a channeling grease will stay where it is after it has been displaced, which doesn't sound good for our purposes. On the other hand, a non-channeling grease tends to migrate back after being displaced, which can promote better lubrication in heavy load applications.

Meanwhile, I've used CRC's "Synthetic Caliper Grease" (#05353) to lubricate a throwout bearing and input bearing retainer on a manual tranny, specifically because of its graphite content. However, that product also contains molybdenum disulfide (MoS2), which is cited in the SAE paper on TLS, and I wondered if it could be used instead. CRC's website provides the following info online:

05353 -- Brake Caliper Synthetic Grease

Bowman Davis brought up another Sta Lube product with MoS2 - SL-3314. CRC's website provides the following info online:

SL3144 -- Moly-Graph® Extreme Pressure Multi-Purpose Lithium Grease

This subject came up again, the following year, in a thread on "Old Topics":

https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=3376&forum=3&post_id=35517#forumpost35517

...where Bowman refreshed his knowledge and added that he'd read, elsewhere [citation needed], that a lithium stearate grease was recommended for the T-L compensator, which corresponds to SL-3144. He then contacted CRC's tech dept. to ask if SL-3144 would be suitable for this planetary type gear box:

https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=3376&forum=3&post_id=35579#forumpost35579

Yet, a question arose, later, as to whether MoS2 was a component of SL-3144. After following the links to the MSDS info for each product, I found that SL-3144 does contain MoS2, but (at 0.2 – 1%) it's a bit less than either SL-3303 or CRC's #05353 (both at 1 – 5%). For a variety of reasons, Bowman has since decided not to use SL-3144.

This may not be the final word, but until we can find out more details on the original grease, it looks like Sta-Lube SL-3303 is the closest we can come to an answer.

>>>CHECK BACK FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS<<<

Terry, didn't I send you a sketch of the heat riser valve for the 1934 Eights? If not I can add it here.

Hi Mal,
The 34's starting to look great again. You two are certainly doing some good things resurecting old Packards.
Any chance of a Pic or two of the heat riser valve either side of the exhaust manifold under the carb?
Speak to you again soon in regard to the rear lower shock mount details
Uh roo
Terry

The thermostat opens fully at its specified threshold, but it cannot regulate how hot the coolant gets. A lower rated thermostat, in good working order, will NOT lower the ultimate operating temperature.

I guess I disagree, with reservations. A lower temperature thermostat can lower the operating temperature as long as the radiator/cooling system has the capacity to remove that amount of heat. The issue to consider is that at colder coolant temperatures the efficiency of the radiator is itself reduced, i.e. the higher the differential temperature between the coolant in the radiator and the surrounding air temperature, the more efficient the radiator becomes.

That's it. Beautiful car, isn't it?

Thanx for the legwork!

I've started a FAQ summarizing the salient points of our exploration of the three products, with links pointing back to the original threads/posts, external links to CRC product info pages, and included a quote of your conversation with CRC's tech. I'll be fine-tuning it in the dyas ahead - and as more info comes to light

Little by little, the FAQ continues to grow. Hopefully, others will develop FAQs for their favorite Packards.

J.W., I believe this is the car you're referring to. Dick has owned it for many years. Photo from the Metropolitan Skyline, CCCA Metro Region's publication, Fall 2009.

Attach file:

---

  (82.29 KB)

Engines DO normally run hotter than the engine coolant thermostat rating.

IMHO, the coolant thermostat is more of a floor than a ceiling. That is, this thermostat is intended to get the engine up to the designed operating temperature as quickly as possible. Cold engines waste fuel.

The thermostat opens fully at its specified threshold, but it cannot regulate how hot the coolant gets. A lower rated thermostat, in good working order, will NOT lower the ultimate operating temperature. How hot the coolant gets is a function of how much heat the engine generates vs. cooling system capacity to remove it.

A sticking thermostat, however, can cause overheating.

I'm very familiar with the car you refer to from the book. The book has it mislabeled though. First of all it's a LWB 1508, not a 1507, and second it's really a formal sedan, as it has a black leather roof, division window, and leather front seat/cloth back seat interior. This just goes to show us that you can't always believe everything printed in these books written by these so called experts. If you look at the body lines of the car in question and compare it to any other 1935/1936 Packard victoria (Standard 8, Super 8, or Twelve) you'll see the lines are identical. The hardware, hinges, ect are all the same as any standard bodied Packard of that era. Rollston used their own hardware and used a one piece bronze casting windshield frame (JN Duesenbergs all have this to). There is an authentic 1937 Rollston victoria in Northern NJ and it looks nothing like the car in question. Again, I commend the owner for saving the car from an abandoned hot rod project, just don't call it a Rollston.

I'm wondering how many other speed records remain unchallenged????
We'll have to pick a break off year. Lets say 1955. OR, someone else mite pick a better break off point.