Paul;

I’ve had success with both 12(-), and 6(+) Pertronix ignition systems. The local Model A expert that Ernie and I know is quick to caution about installing a Pertronix ignition module electrically close to an alternator. His advice is to connect the ignition module directly to the battery. I’ve been thinking about that advice for quite a while and the only thing I’ve come-up with is the potential of an AC component in the alternator output, especially if the internal capacitor is weak/fails, and I’m not real sure whether that type of failure is detectable without an oscilloscope. Readers should know that a Model A produces quite a bit of electro-magnetic interference from the secondary side of the ignition system, and the Pertronix system seems to be immune to this type of environment, but I suspect they conduct quite a bit of testing within EMI environments.

The years of service using Pertronix ignition are; 15 years (12-), 8 years (6+), and 5 years (6+), with no known problems, or service needs. The local Model A expert also cautions about coil designs that place a resistor internally. His concern is the resistor will likely be at the bottom of the coil housing, and if the coil is oil filled the resistor may not be cooled if the coil is mounted ‘nose down’ . . . as in the Model A and ‘48-‘54 Packards. I use Pertronix epoxy filled coils that are just about in the middle of the recommended resistance range. Pertronix did say that reliability is a function of coil resistance (within the recommended range), but not enough to be concerned about. This business about coils has nothing to do with whether the ignition is electronic or points, and the guy that specializes in Model A sees a lot of failed parts and tries to spread the word when he runs across a problem.

Pertronix’s recommendation on how to implement the functionality of the overdrive kick-down feature in one of their 6+ units is in the attached file. Seems the 7 ohm circuit will defeat the spark sufficiently, while also limiting the current through the ignition module. Without the resistor the kick-down circuit would essentially ‘short to ground’ the ignition module for whatever the latent time is to have the overdrive solenoid change position. I suspect, but don’t know by how much, that the ignition module’s reliability would suffer with the module shorted to ground.

Paul I think you can install an electronic ignition with a good amount of stealth, however on an Autolite system the Pertronics wires will enter the distributor versus the external connection on the OEM unit. My goal was to install the Pertronics system without altering the stock wire loom, so I mounted a barrier strip to make all of the connections (within reach of the stock loom), and mount the 7 ohm resistor. All of that mess was mounted to the side of the cylinder head hiding under the coil and ignition wires. I agree with Mechagon, the conversion is straightforward, and is not glaring even if you include the constraint of ‘do no harm’. HH56 comment about having almost ‘no room for error’ with a 6 volt starting system is equally correct. I have a NAPA 3EH battery, and soldered AWG 00 cables in my ’48 288, and that combination is acceptable. There are no substitutes for cold cranking amps and circular mils. Paul it’s up to you . . . its 100% reversible if you decide to restore the car to ‘as built’ condition.

dp

Attach file:

---

pertronix6VPGInstallationInstructions_withOverDrive.pdf Size: 156.18 KB; Hits: 87

Bill;

A while back kevinpackard was embarking on the task of repacking the rear bearings on his car. I provided him a supplement to the shop manual that I’ve been working on and off for some time now. The specific posting is in the project blog section under KPack’s 1954 Panama, page 64, posting #634. See the following link;

Re: KPack's 1954 Panama [Project Blogs] - Packard Motor Car Information (packardinfo.com)

Additions to the supplement that were identified during Kevin’s project were:

1. A note to lubricate the inner seal with gear oil, especially if a new seal is being installed.
2. A note to lubricate the outer seal with either gear oil or bearing grease, especially if a new seal is being installed.
3. A note on the addition of a series of center punch marks if a loose fit is encountered between the outer bearing race and the axle housing bore.

There was a discussion on all of those subjects as the blog proceeded.

I know the supplement was written for the '48-'54 automobiles, but I believe the design of the '40 is quite similar.

The hardest part of that job is the removal of the brake drums . . . after that it is pretty much routine.

dp

Let’s shoot a flare towards Speedwell USA, and have Ross weigh-in on the bolt torque.

dp

If it was a standard shift flywheel the bolts are torqued to 55 - 60 ftlbs . . . that would be for a 7/16 X 20 thread diameter and pitch.

I looked in the Ultramatic section of the shop manual and came up empty.

Assuming the crank shaft is the same Ultramatic v Standard we can assume the crank is good to 60 ftlbs. Now the question is what grade bolts did you buy?

Another question would be how much of a lubricant is Loctite ?

dp

John a while back (post # 10) you reported the flywheel bolts were torqued to 25 ftlbs with blue Loctite. The torque sounds low to me, was that a typo, or is that the torque specified for that flex-plate?

dp

Bear:
Ross Miller’s video on the subject has a pretty clear view of the clamp @ 11:10.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiYY11rwjQ6A&t=1227s

or search

Installing a Distributor | Packard Straight 8 | Ross Miller | Speedwell Garage - YouTube

The clamping screw is at six o’clock on the clamp. The intent is to tighten the bolts at 3 & 9 o’clock before the distributor is installed, and then with the horizontal screw loose install the distributor. Timing is then conducted statically or dynamically with a timing light, following which the clamping screw is tightened. On the left side of the clamp is a feature that allows the gauging of small changes to the timing without the use of a timing light. To do this the clamp bolts at 3 & 9 o’clock are loosened just enough to rotate the body of the distributor. The scale on the left indicates the new datum, or bias to the initial adjustment done with the timing light. I’ve been told that such a feature allowed for a timing adjustment to accommodate a low octane fuel. Once the distributor is adjusted the clamp hold down bolts are re-torqued, and if the owner thought that the poor fuel quality situation had passed the distributor timing bias could be returned to the original position. At least that’s the story that was told to me . . . who knows, it could be true. Once you have the distributor out you can remove the bolts, I believe the bolts have a shoulders, and inspect the mechanism. I believe you will find the clamp has limited authority on timing adjustments, and should be installed initially at zero bias.

dp

Wat_Tyler that looks like a jack that Reedy & Shaub associate with a Senior cars, however the exact text of the caption is “1948 – 1950 Packard Jack #419541 (Senior and some Junior Models)”. If the column is square that’s the one. The Eight and Deluxe Eight used the ‘Vee’ shaped column exclusively. Reedy & Shaub also point out that all of the 22nd & 23rd series cars used the same part number for the jack, but I suspect it was a part number for everything in the cardboard box . . . including the box. The parts catalog for group 16.0066 supports that conclusion, in addition there are separate listings for the spark plug/fender shroud wrench, and the jack handle/lug wrench, and a listing for both wrenches combined, but interestingly not a separate part number for the jack, either alone, or with the cardboard box.

The 22nd & 23rd Senior jack base appears to be quite similar, perhaps identical, to the 21st series equipment.

dp

Kevin:
I was thinking of taking my ’48 to a shop to have the rear end worked on. I specifically asked the mechanic on how he dealt with the shims, and his remark was ‘What shims?’, at that point I decided to do the work at home. Be cautious in selecting ‘shops’ to work on a 70 – 80 year old design.

Remember you measured the bearing clearance with feeler gauges before you re-assembled everything, and you had an acceptable number. Was it the measurement process you think an error could have been made?

I’m still skeptical about a bearing making a squeaking noise, especially one that you know has a good amount of fresh grease. I was just looking at the cut-away drawing of the rear brake, wheel, and axle bearing lay-out. I was quite surprised how close the outer most oil scupper comes to the outer diameter of the hub. Assuming a bit of oversized bolt holes in the outer shield I could imagine a bit of rub.

I’ll second BigKev’s remark about being on the lookout for witness marks. Also before the disassembly try to set-up a pointer close to the lathe center in the end of the axle (cotter pin removed), and see if you can detect a difference in axle ‘wobble’ one side to another. This pointer could be nothing more than a wire coat hanger and a few cement blocks. Nothing fancy, just a qualitative comparison.

The bearing clearance can be verified with everything assembled. The trick is where the measurement ‘stuff’ attaches. Think about some angle stock ‘C’ clamped to the leaf spring, or a dial indicator attached to a sizable mass positioned near the brake drum. Again both wheels removed, a helper pulling on the other side, and you pushing and pulling your side while taking the measurements.

Ross’s comment about the edges of brake shoes touching the drum is right ‘on point’. There’s one brand of old cars that uses the same tapered axle design that runs into that situation often. For that car there are aftermarket sheet metal shims available that fit between the axle tapper and the hub that effectively pushes the drum out board. I would think a bit of a bend in the backing plate would push a shoe out board, and that’s not a lot of clearance to begin with.

I’ve lost track . . . Is the noise coming from the side that had the ‘drum wobble’?

dp

Kevin, I would be quite reluctant to stop a spinning tire with a gloved hand. Perhaps I would do that if the car was on a lift and I could easily apply friction directly on the tire thread. If you have a helper available have them put the brakes on, and then then the wheel is not spinning you hold the wheel while they slowly release the brakes (emphasis on slowly), but I think there is a better way.

I would use the brakes myself and adjust one side ‘tight’. The process would be to tighten by X clicks ( that would be the amount it takes to completely stop the wheel from spinning ), and evaluate whether the squeak is still audible. Then loosen that side X clicks and go to the other wheel. With you not part of the process of holding the wheels you’re free to investigate the location of the squeak . . . perhaps its outboard at the brake drum, or closer to the differential.

If you can pin-down which wheel makes the noise, and the noise is likely coming from the drum, then I would loosen those brakes and reevaluate. If the noise is coming from the friction surface of the brake shoes, then when running the shoes loose should alter the amplitude of the noise.

If the noise is there throughout the process of stopping one wheel at a time, then the common components would be the propeller shaft and differential. I don’t think a component covered in gear oil can produce a squeak. I’ve seen U-joints completely dry and rusted, but I can’t remember if the complaint was ‘squeaking’, or ‘thunking’ (sp) when the transmission was dropped into gear. Kevin, is there any abnormal noises then torque is first applied to the drive-line?

dp

Hi Josef;

For the past 14 months I’ve been hiding in the house, and only driving my Packard on solo adventures to keep everything wet and working. Some good news came in last week, in that the hospital where I previously volunteered will begin letting us back in the building providing limited and highly structured service. My first day back is next Wednesday, for some mandatory training on the new rules driven by COVID-19, and then my regular weekly shifts, unless of course another wave hits us.

From what I can tell you have the correct carburetor parts, but there seems to be a story about the bypass bleed. Early in the production of the 531S the plug was 11B-159, and then so some reason was changed to 11B-168, but the 643S carburetor (logical successor to the 531S) reverted back to the 11B-159 configuration. We are talking about starting with a #52 drill size, then changing to a #53 drill only to revert back to a #52 drill again? Since this by-pass and the basic idle mixture screw are the means to control/alter the vacuum being applied to the low speed jet I would suspect the business of the #52-#53-#52 by-pass intrigue has nothing to do with the observed lean condition at idle. I think the by-pass is there to begin the atomization process, and to a lesser extent define the nominal idle mixture screw adjustment. At this point in time there is insufficient evidence to change the idle fuel jet.

So far I’m not convinced the carburetor is the root cause of the lean condition you have observed . . . it may be, but I’m just not convinced yet. If your car has an Electromatic Clutch then you must make sure that item is not creating a vacuum leak along with the windshield wiper system. Once the known suspects have been checked we can resume with a discussion about the carburetor . . . the good news is you have the correct parts.

Now for a story about a WDO 644S with the almost the same symptom as your 531S. I was setting-up a replacement carburetor for my ’48 288, but really hoping I would never need it. When I was finished fussing with the ‘refresh’ of the back-up carburetor I put it on the engine, but I could not get the engine to idle correctly. It did however try to run better when I backed-out the mixture screws. The engine had a steady, repeating misfire, and the carburetor made a whistling sound. Once I switched back to the original carburetor all of those symptoms went away. I’m still looking for the root cause for the whistling because that’s likely a source of a vacuum leak, which depending on where it is could have also disrupted the idle circuit. The point of this story is twofold, a.) a vacuum leak can push the engine lean, and no amount of carburetor adjustment seems to help, and b.) the vacuum leak could be the carburetor itself.

Let’s loop back to item a.) above. While I’m sitting here writing this it dawned on me whenever I adjusted a carburetor I always have adjusted both screws equally, meaning if I turned one screw out 1/4 turn I would dutifully adjust the other a 1/4 turn out, and as long as the engine speed hadn’t decreased go back to the first screw for some more adjustment. The intake manifold of the Packard is dual plane meaning one barrel of the carburetor is feeding a 4 cylinder engine, while the other barrel is feeding another 4 cylinder engine, so I could have started with 4 cylinders running lean, and the other 4 cylinders running OK, but by the time I got done with it I hadn’t completely enrichened the lean cylinders, but wildly over enrichened the other 4 cylinders. You might try to investigate whether adjusting only one idle mixture screw helps the lean condition . . . and then start all over and try the other mixture screw. This is a diagnostic procedure just to determine if ‘one side’ of the carburetor is faulty . . . I have never read any Carter advice on how much the idle mixture screws could be misbalanced. I’ve always thought the answer was ‘not much’.

dp