Reminds me of when I registered by Packard on my E-Z Pass account. It ended up as "MAKE - unknown" and "MODEL - Packard" despite my lengthy letter. Who was it, Longfellow(?) who said something like "a foolish consistency is the hobgobblin of feeble minds". Perhaps a motto for some of our civil servants and their programs.

I think I've seen that kind of material, is it kind of chunks of cork in a black rubber matrix? I certainly wouldn't use that around gasoline but the cork I've used for gasket materials is simple basic sheet cork which you can buy in varying thicknesses at most auto parts stores for from industrial supply houses like MSC. And as I've said, never a problem using it around gasoline applications.

Perhaps a better example is this earlier patent plate where the identifying number is the motor number, but it's called the VEHICLE NUMBER. And then an example from 1949 or so, again it's a VEHICLE NUMBER, not a serial number.

Attach file:

---

  (22.55 KB)


  (72.84 KB)

Yeah, it's a matter of semantics, but I have to disagree; before the mandated VINs Packard called their identifying number a VEHICLE NUMBER, not a serial number. Please look at a Packard Patent Plate of almost any era (sample below).

Up until about the 9th series the vehicle number was the motor number, but not thereafter. And many, perhaps most states titled with the vehicle number, though there are exceptions. In fact most Packards I've seen titled with motor numbers (and its damn few) were those where the original patent plate was missing.

On your 1924 Packard the plate should be on the inside of the cowl, above the clutch/brake pedals. In that era, the vehicle number is the motor number.

Attach file:

---

  (23.85 KB)

SOME CLOSURE TO THE MONTE CARLO MATTER

At a CCCA meeting today I got some further information on the fate of 2 of the Monte Carlos from Ralph Marano. Many of you will recognize Ralph for his extensive collection of fine cars, including a gaggle or two of Darrins, 1 each of the 1934 LeBarons, and many of the postwar show cars including a Pan American, the Vignale, both Balboas, the Request, and I believe a Daytona.

Ralph's information is that one of the two 1952 Monte Carlos survives in a private collection in Georgia, and that the 22nd Series Monte Carlo was not crushed but cut up into scrap some years back.

I'll stay out of the international fray, but back for a moment to the statement made earlier than ethanol attacks cork, I was reminded today that one of the better arguments against that is the use of corks in wine and even some cognac bottles.

I would avoid cork on any fuel system component, as today's fuel has enough alcohol in it to eat right through it. It will also eat into and destroy a cork float on a sending unit

Possibly so, though as I said I've had no problems with cork with the 10% EtOH gasoline. My float is also cork (uncoated), still functioning fine, and the gasket on the fuel pump sediment bowl is also cork, and no problems there either. Perhaps the problems will come down the line, though as I retired chemist I don't recall that EtOH attacks cork. But the old standard of coating the sending unit cork float with shellac should be avoided as EtOH is a solvent for shellac.

There were quite a few running changes of motors, and even more on the Twin Ultramatics, also built at Utica. If the engines had no numbers assigned at Utica, there would be no way of identifying which engines or transmissions had the changes, thus the need to number at Utica. Most if not all the TSB's that provide information about the running changes reference the Utica # at which the changes became effective.

I have vague recollections of the SALVAGE TV program and even more vague recollections of the Packard Twelve. Was it a club sedan? Two-tone, perhaps maroon body and silver or black fenders?

WHERE ELSE did they build engines?????

Of course prior to 1955 they built engines at East Grand, so my guess is it was to brag about their new state-of-the-art engine plant.