i was under the impression that was the main reason for the Conner move. Those "experts" from the industry coming from other mfgs that Nance had gathered apparently convinced him that the factory was by then quite old in some parts and multistory buildings were considered costly and inefficient. If that was the predominant thinking by the rest, then I would imagine not many offers were made.

Here is some of Jerry's engine compthttps://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=26218#forumpost26218

and some morehttps://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=27518#forumpost27518

Didn't see any of interior though so may be in a different thread.

A few posts further, there is also a list of the components Loyd Smith used on his car --also from Classic-- but some of those items NLA and replaced by later models. Some other posters have some pics of their installations there as well.

I am curious as to any idea what did the damage and any other signs beforehand.

Packard diffs were very robust to start with and a heavy 1950 car with modest horsepower and Ultramatic is not particularly known for doing well at the dragstrip. Of course, I guess the previous owner's son (or daughter) could have wound it up and then dropped into low one time too many trying but would have thought something else would go first-------.

Guess Detroit needs it's cut of the fees, being broke and all. They will just have to leave it to the arsonist crowd, but seems like anyone hastening the process of demolition at this stage would be applauded, not cited.

There are a few notices of various noises caused by various items and valves in some of the technical literature. None are very descriptive as Packard usually just called things "disturbances" or "rattles". Most would seem to apply to the earlier units but might be worthwhile to have a look at them anyway.https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/serviceinfo/catindex.php?cat=9&series=2

I believe there was one or two mentions of problems in 51-4 maybe here or AACA but certainly not as many as later cars.

The heat may well have something to do with it but doubt the angle by itself since they were all the same since introduction. Do believe the angle would be a contributor though since any cooked fluid or debris would just float to the most vulnerable part of the unit, namely the compensator valve which is right at the top with it angled. On the cars with it mounted horizontal there may be enough difference in design where garbage could float & lodge somewhere else.

Regarding the low location and a modern unit, I would think the remote fill setup would go a long way toward eliminating moisture problems and perhaps a heat shield or insulating material would help the other.

Just looked at my car and have a couple of questions for Craig also. Granted, Eric's and PV8's firewall solution is easier but I like the thought of it hidden in the original location.

You mentioned it has worked for 7 years but if you were doing it again, is there anything different you would try. I am wondering if the 7 1/2 dual booster would fit for the extra oomph. The 7 single you used looks like it almost touches the steering column and the 7 1/2 dual is slightly longer and wider-- although not as long as the 7 dual. Maybe with a different master cylinder for the frame issue?

Just thinking out loud to try and keep closer to the factory pedal arrangement. If a bracket were made just at the base of column mounted on firewall--maybe with a U cutout for column-- or else at top of toe plate and then with ears extended out and dropped down straddling or parallel to pedal to the pivot point needed to get the ratio, if it would be less obtrusive. A question for ABS but wonder if there is a shorter actuating rod that could be used on booster which would lower the pedal height. Again, just thinking (dangerous, I know) but lots of talented people here might have options.

4.1303 has to be there in this design and it even shows on those from years earlier. It is what keeps the lamp fastened to the adjusting bucket. That way the bucket and lamp is moveable as an assembly via the adjusting screws. Without it, in this design there is no pressure provided by the external trim ring alone and the lamp would float around. If they do use the same setup on RHD cars, I can see why you would be having trouble adjusting if missing.

If it is not used on yours, would be very interested in some pictures for curiosity sake next time you see the car. It would be something different vs what we use here. Wonder if something was fitted on by importers for a different style UK light or maybe other countries had their own requirements which is why nothing shows for export models.

The cylinder itself is the limiting factor. It can only move so far and you still have the force issue. At 1:1 you only get as much pressure as you can push with your foot whereas at the greater ratio you get your foot force plus the lever advantage but in a shorter distance. That limited distance is why the larger surface area is needed for the same volume. It becomes a trade off with the lever advantage getting the nod.

Yes. As Craig found, the 1:1 in the Packard requires extreme effort in a master designed for 3 or 4:1. The BTV is not a master cylinder in the conventional sense. It uses a long stroke with a narrow rod that never touches the cylinder walls to displace or squeeze the fluid out whereas the modern units use a short stroke and larger surface area to push the equivalent volume ahead of the piston.