Happy Easter and welcome to Packard Motor Car Information! If you're new here, please register for a free account.  
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
FAQ's
Main Menu
Recent Forum Topics
Who is Online
169 user(s) are online (93 user(s) are browsing Forums)

Members: 1
Guests: 168

Packard Don, more...
Helping out...
PackardInfo is a free resource for Packard Owners that is completely supported by user donations. If you can help out, that would be great!

Donate via PayPal
Video Content
Visit PackardInfo.com YouTube Playlist

Donate via PayPal

Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (DavidPackard)




Re: KPack's 1954 Panama
Home away from home
Home away from home

DavidPackard
Good point Joe . . . those caps do eat-up the wheel paint, tend to fly off on hard turns, cut valve stems, and, as you said, make funny noises, especially if a clip or two are missing. That’s a design we’ve long since retired. When I bought my Cavalier the covers had quite a bit of black electrical tape wrapped around them. I’m not sure why, and I took it off as soon as I discovered it. If the covers made noise after that perhaps I had the radio turned up high and didn’t hear them squeaking. Until I bought the Cavalier I don’t think I ever owned a car with full wheel covers with the toothed clips that dug into the wheel.

Removing the offending wheel cover is a pretty easy fix for Kevin.

Posted on: 2021/5/9 23:28
 Top 


Re: ‘49 22nd bumper jack
Home away from home
Home away from home

DavidPackard
Here's a photo

Attach file:



jpg  48PackardJackPatentMarking.jpg (130.77 KB)
34287_60989fc12f644.jpg 1920X1080 px

Posted on: 2021/5/9 21:51
 Top 


Re: ‘49 22nd bumper jack
Home away from home
Home away from home

DavidPackard
Dell is correct.

The square tube post with the cone to keep the jack aligned with the bumper is associated with 22nd & 23rd senior cars.

The 'Vee' shaped post with the alignment feature formed in the sheet metal is associated with 22nd & 23rd junior cars.

For Packard, the 'Tee' shaped post came later, but yours seems not to be a Packard jack because I didn't see the removable piece that fits the bumper.

Having said that I'm sure if you asked the salesman politely he/she would throw-in the 'vastly superior' senior jack. I'm not all that sure the square tubing design is in fact superior or stronger. I see one failure mode as deflection of the structure where the teeth are formed. My eye tells me the 'Vee' design would not deflect as much in the area of the teeth.

As a long thin column I think the square tube will carry more load, but that's my eye talking. The senior cars are likely heavier, but I can't believe anyone played that close to a safety factor of one.

At any rate we all think they're unsafe and can be displayed with pride, but not used to jack the car high enough to remove a wheel.

If your car is a junior the 'Vee' design has a higher probability of being correct. I'm surprised the markings are not visible.

dp

Posted on: 2021/5/9 21:42
 Top 


Re: KPack's 1954 Panama
Home away from home
Home away from home

DavidPackard
Kevin:

With all of the grease you put on the bearings I doubt whether the squeak could be coming from the rollers. From what I know about the subject you would have to be wildly off on the cold clearance to produce any abnormal noises. It’s much more a bearing life issue.

Brakes can make noise, but I think that is predominately a disk brake characteristic. I did you put a dab of Lubriplate on the backing plates whether the shoe would contact? A light film will do, not a lot. You should also put your eyeballs on the brake drum that you straightened.

I think the rule of thumb for cotter pin fit in a hole is something like 80%, but I believe that’s something I picked up from working of helicopters in the Army, and that was a while ago.

Here’s what I found on the web;
American standard cotter pin sizes are in nominal fractional inches, starting at 1/32. The sizes below 5/16 inch are intended to fit a hole 1/64 inch larger than the pin size; for pins larger than that the pin and hole size are the same. Lengths are not standardized.

dp

Posted on: 2021/5/9 21:20
 Top 


Re: KPack's 1954 Panama
Home away from home
Home away from home

DavidPackard
Kevin; I also commend you on your progress. Well done!

The ‘squeaking/chirping’ could be just about anything for a car that sat for a while. Suspension parts are the normal suspects, but if you’re willing to invest 2 more cotter pins, I would double check the torque on the rear axle nuts. You previously quoted 220 & 235 foot pounds, so if you leaned on them with 200 foot pounds the nuts shouldn’t move and the new pins will slide right in. You said you put on about 15 miles and I know the rule of thumb for a torque recheck is about 100 miles, but a loose hub can/may (emphasis on vague) make noises. If the squeak is random it’s likely suspension, but if it’s one to one with mechanical rotation then address. While you’re down there you can also re-verify the brake drum run-out.

Which one of the kids has claimed the car as their inheritance, or for their exclusive use to drive to high school in the future?

Posted on: 2021/5/9 16:22
 Top 


Re: ‘49 22nd bumper jack
Home away from home
Home away from home

DavidPackard
I would say the 'Vee' post jack is a junior 22nd/23rd series jack . . . assuming the ASM Co marking is there, and the 'Tee' post remains unidentified.

The consensus of the forum members is to treat the OEM bumper jack with the greatest of respect, retirement is appropriate.

dp

Posted on: 2021/5/9 15:53
 Top 


Re: ‘49 22nd bumper jack
Home away from home
Home away from home

DavidPackard
The pin shown in post #7 looks correct for a 'junior'. The 'Vee' angle should be 72 degrees, and the markings as indicated. The base will not have a small hole.

Posted on: 2021/5/9 15:24
 Top 


Re: ‘49 22nd bumper jack
Home away from home
Home away from home

DavidPackard
In post #7

Are the markings clear enough to read?

Posted on: 2021/5/9 15:18
 Top 


Re: ‘49 22nd bumper jack
Home away from home
Home away from home

DavidPackard
Wheelhorse76

‘Tee’ section post, and removable bumper cradle are features of the 55/56 design.

My thoughts on your question and the jack shown in the photo:

1. Packard ‘numbered’ their 22nd & 23rd series jacks with the same part number independent of the jack’s design. The Packard part number did not appear on the jack hardware.

2. More than one jack design was used on the 22nd series cars. Typically they were divided ‘junior’ and ‘senior’, but I’m sure there might be a bit of ‘cross pollination’.

3. The Packard jack ‘post’ for the 22nd series was either a ‘Vee’ shape (junior) with the teeth rolled into the inside corner, or square (senior) with the teeth on an outboard face.. Yours looks more of a ‘Tee’ section and that design was not used by Packard until the V-8 cars.

4. The portion of the Packard jack that touches and engages the bumper is broad and has a pin feature that will fit into hole in the lower surface of the bumper itself. Yours looks more like a flat pad. The senior pin appears to be a separate cone shaped piece, while the junior forms that feature in the stampings.

I believe the correct jack for a 22nd car ‘junior’ will be stamped “ASM Co” with patent number numbers 2,266,760 for the post and jack, and 2,397,965 for manufacturing details of forming the teeth into the post. I don’t know the marking on the senior design that Owen provided a photo, but I suspect only the patent number will change, only because the square post was used before the ‘Vee’ shape.

It is documented that Packard provided different jacks within one series, typically segregated junior/senior, but your jack does not appear to be either of those designs. I’m still hung-up on the lack of the safety pin or lip to keep the jack from falling away from the bumper. That seemed to be a feature throughout the industry for bumper jacks, and, as others have pointed out, the 22nd and 23rd series bumpers had holes along the lower lip for that exact purpose.

I’m squarely in the camp that these jacks are good to look at and display with pride, but should never be used. I carry a hydraulic bottle jack just in case.

dp

Posted on: 2021/5/9 15:14
 Top 


Re: Aluminum Head?
Home away from home
Home away from home

DavidPackard
54packpac;

It looks like you have a 327 carburetor on a 359 engine . . . maybe, you surely have a 2103S tag, and perhaps all of the rest of the internal parts too.

It should work just fine, but some areas to keep an eye out for are:

Idle adjustments that don’t match the Carter recommendations. At idle your 359 will have about 10% more air flow and the idle stop and idle mixture will need to accommodate this air flow change. My bet is once you adjust the idle speed the mixture screw adjustment will be close to what Carter expected, but these adjustments are dependent on one and other, meaning change one and the other will need rechecking.

The idle port opening is different, and there may be (emphasis of the word ‘may’) transition roughness during the idle to main circuit transition.

The vacuum port size appears to be the same, but you might want to keep an eye on it next time you have a timing light on the engine.

My greatest concern if the potential of 6% lower secondary fuel flow, which will alter the air fuel ratio by about ½ a ratio unit. It’s not clear to me if the aluminum head needed some extra fuel to stay out of detonation jail (those with more experience may fill in the gaps in my education), but if it did your iron head may be quite tolerant to going a bit in the lean direction. Read the sparkplugs to determine if this is a potential problem.

The good news is the correct secondary jet size for the 2112S parts list is the same as a #47 drill. Keep your eye out for a ‘junk’ 2112S, because the parts you might need are quite tolerant to corrosion damage.

With respect to your posting #54: I’ve been looking for a ‘ballpark’ figure for the CFM of a WCFB. What I found was 350 – 500 CFM depending on the specific WCFB. I concluded, based on main venturi sizes, the Packard carburetors would be at the lower side of the range. I found a few Holley four barrels that are rated at 350 CFM, and equipped with either electric or manual chokes. The smallest AFB I found was rated at 600 CFM, therefore your carburetor selection may be a bit large.

dp

Posted on: 2021/5/6 18:15
 Top 



TopTop
« 1 ... 21 22 23 (24) 25 26 27 ... 52 »



Search
Recent Photos
Photo of the Day
Recent Registry
Website Comments or Questions?? Click Here Copyright 2006-2024, PackardInfo.com All Rights Reserved