Re: Need Your Help
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Forum Ambassador
|
A friend experienced exactly the same problem on a 1941 180, it backfired so bad it blew the seam on the air filter. On a second occasion it blew some of the exhaust system off the car.
Problem was so simple, the shank of the plastic distributor rotor had cracked and the rotor was able to move independently of the distributor shaft. And it was a new NAPA (Echlin) rotor! EDIT: But now seeing what happened to your distributor, I'd say that is indeed an extremely rare failure mode; I've rebuilt dozens and dozens, perhaps hundreds of distributors and never seen that!
Posted on: 2008/10/24 11:10
|
|||
|
Re: 1955 Packard No Engine Number?
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Forum Ambassador
|
As far as I know all the regular production 55/56 V8 engines were built at Utica; I guess there could have been some early prototypes built elsewhere. Ditto for the Twin Ultramatics.
Posted on: 2008/10/24 10:18
|
|||
|
Re: 1955 Packard No Engine Number?
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Forum Ambassador
|
As already stated the motor number should match the VN and be stamped near the oil filler tube. I've only seen one engine that I assume to be a factory replacement engine (eventually sold for a marine conversion) and it had a Utica plant number but of course no motor number because it was never assembled into a car; in this case the Utica # was in the same general location as would have been used for the motor number. This may have been the accepted practice for replacement engines, I don't know. I think if you look around carefully you still have a chance to locate it. The "167" you found doesn't sound like a Utica # because they all should be begin with an alpha character between "A" and "D" and be 4 digits in length. Are you sure you looked in the right location for the Utica #? You can't see it from above and it's not all that easy to see from below; I don't know if I'd call it on the exhaust flange as you said, but passenger side of the motor, at the rear, below the cylinder head, there is a small protruding cast boss or rectangular tab and that's where you should find it.
Curious about your car, it sounds very much like one that was trailered in during the last days of the Warren Centennial for sale. Pretty beat and badly weathered, shifter coming from a crude hole cut in the floor?
Posted on: 2008/10/24 8:33
|
|||
|
Re: Packard Monte Carlo
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Forum Ambassador
|
I agree John, the 22nd/23rd series car puts a bit of pizzaz in a body shell pretty much devoid of same, whereas the 52/53 version is stubby, awkward, and just plain "frumpy".
John, if I may suggest, earlier in this thread you seemed to be quoting from a reference book and then perhaps added some further comments of your own. It's not possible to tell where you stopped quoting and started with your own words. It is proper and would really be helpful, and this goes for all of us, if when we quote from a reference source, we either use quotation marks or put it in italics so readers can separate our own thoughts from the material taken from a reference source. Just a suggestion to bring some better clarity to what's posted. A few further comments on the 52/53 Monte Carlos; the cars apparently had some real structural deficiencies, lacking rigidity of body in the front. An article about Arbib relates an exchange between Packard and Henney that concludes that if Packard were to consider making 100 of them, radical re-engineering including using portions of the convertible structure would be necessary. Perhaps that's what helped kill off the idea.
Posted on: 2008/10/23 22:24
|
|||
|
Re: Packard Monte Carlo
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Forum Ambassador
|
Thanks Randy. Packard purchased from Motor Wheel Corp. for many years, up thru 1956. The 17" wire wheels on my 34 Eight are also marked "Motor Wheel Corp" and i think I've also seen their name on a set of wooden artillery wheels from a 1932 Super Eight. At some point Kelsey-Hayes bought Motor Wheel, I forget the year but think it was about the time Packard expired.
Posted on: 2008/10/23 15:06
|
|||
|
Re: 1941 Packard 160 Army Staff General Car Questions
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Forum Ambassador
|
I can't answer why there is no patent plate. One reason may be that some demented people like to remove them and put them up on eBay. But if there is no patent plate where did you get the # 1472-2801, the selling dealer and delivery date from? The patent plate should look something like the attached - if all the silkscreen paint were worn or polished off, you'd still see the stamped information. The vehicle # was stamped at the factory, the other information was to have been stamped by the dealer at the time of sale.
If by the numbers on the firewall you mean the large embossed number enclosed by a triangle at each end, it is a "thief-proof" or body serial number and isn't traceable to anything. It was simply there as an additional identifying number in case of theft. For a 1941 car it should begin with a 5 or 6, double check again on the first digit you give as an "8", this would place the car as well into the postwar era. The motor numbers for each year and series are on this website so you should be able to verify if at least the motor is correct for the year and model. Your car should be a chassis type 1903 and the correct motor number would be between C-500001 and C-504550. The 127 inch wheelbase would have been used for the 5 passenger sedan, among others. If in doubt, just check it with a tape measure. To my knowledge there were no "military built" cars, just normal production cars commandered for military use.
Posted on: 2008/10/23 14:33
|
|||
|
Re: 1941 Packard 160 Army Staff General Car Questions
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Forum Ambassador
|
I can't help much, really. Texas Motors was located at 2420 Avenue F, and a Samuel Boyd was the manager in that era.
Your VN decodes as the 801st "160" 5 passenger touring sedan built that year (or perhaps the 1801st, I forget whether the base number was 1000 or 2000 in that era). In total 1941 model production for the 160 series was 3525 cars distributed among 10 wheelbase/body style combinations, of which almost certainly the one you have was the highest production volume. Wheelbase for the 1472 is 127 inches, and initial list price is given as $1750, increased by $45 in June of 1941.
Posted on: 2008/10/23 11:55
|
|||
|
Re: Packard Monte Carlo
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Forum Ambassador
|
Here's a picture of the Monte Carlo (II), taken at the Earle C. Anthony dealership in San Francisco in 1953. This photograph has been republished from time to time, too bad the quality isn't better. It doesn't have external spares (plural) as was noted in an older reference source, and the wheels are no doubt Motor Wheel Corporation, not Kelsey Hayes. There is also a frontal view which shows the Caribbean-style air scoop, but with a cormorant (wings down) hood ornament. Frankly, I think it's awkward looking, not enough wheelbase to carry the lines for one thing.
Posted on: 2008/10/23 8:28
|
|||
|
Re: Hose Clamps
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Forum Ambassador
|
Notice that lousy alignment between the cooler and the pump on the V8 picture Kev posted for me. Fortunately the alignment is a lot better in real life.
Posted on: 2008/10/22 17:53
|
|||
|