54packpac

The ’54 wiring diagram from Howard that is currently on this site is the one I referenced earlier. It has the Service Counselor text imbedded. IMO that’s far more preferable than an incorrect diagram and a separate SC.

I looked at the diagram and found the following items connected to the BATT post of the 30A breaker:

21R Power feed spliced to 1-R
Front cigar lighter
Clock w/3A fuse
Body Feed later identified by the SC
> Rear cigar lighter
> Courtesy lamps
> Trunk lamp if so equipped

The diagram for the 5462-65-67 models (Clipper Super) appears to have the Body Feed circuit on the ‘load’ side of the 30A CB.

For the 10A CB; circuit 42D (power to the reverse lamp switch) appears to be un-protected.

From this I’ve concluded the SC does not apply to circuit 42D.

WRT your comment “how many other peeps might . . . “, I suspect you’re not the only one that has an ‘as built’ wire connection scheme. I’ve put removal of the instrument cluster on my ‘to do’ list. The next question is whether circuit 42D should be protected (I lean to Yes), and whether the SC guidance be taken (I lean to Yes). Since the diagram for the Clipper Supers is correct, I’m wondering whether the Body Feed issue is a documentation only issue with all vehicles wired correctly at the 30A CB, or some non-Clipper Supers were assembled in a configuration that later was found to be incorrect.

dp

54packpac

One more observation. When I had the instrument cluster out of my ’54 I noted a piece of body sheet metal just behind the cluster. I would suspect this sheet metal is to increase the body stiffness just below the windshield. That aside, the edge of the metal was quite sharp, and in my estimation would cut wiring insulation quite handedly. I tried my best at rounding the sharp edge and ultimately put a double layer of gorilla tape along the edge. I was actually in the process of changing all of the instrument bulbs and without my knowledge the right turn signal indicator made contact with this stiffener. Trouble-shooting of ‘how did changing the bulbs break the turn signals?’ led to the ‘sharpness’ observation. The turn signal bulb socket wire connection requires a bend to avoid the brace and I had inadvertently straightened the bulb connection . . . duh! From that experience I’ve concluded there’s not a lot of room behind the instrument cluster for wiring.

dp

54packpac

The copy of the ’54 wiring diagram I have has this note;

At the lower part of Page 29, you will note a wire identified as "Body Feed." In the wiring diagram this wire is connected to the "Bat Post" on the back of the instrument cluster. This is incorrect and should be connected to the "Aux. Post" to provide circuit breaker protection for the rear chassis and body wiring.

Is your car wired per the original wiring diagram, or has the above observation been incorporated?

dp

Here's an outer envelope drawing and performance curves. Note the time delay.

Attach file:

---

CircuitBreaker.pdf Size: 33.19 KB; Hits: 20

Tobs
I know on this side of the pond the external dimensions of such circuit breakers are controlled by some regulatory group . . . perhaps SAE, but it could be an electrical society . . . they’re all the same. If you care to buy from a US based electrical supplier and have them shipped to you that might be a lower cost option, but I doubt it. I don’t believe the HD items are in anyway ‘special’, and the linked website suggests the manufacturer is Standard Motor Products a US based company. Pay attention to the copper color / silver color binding posts. Copper = Power Input, Silver = Load. It’s all about safety. If the movable portion of the circuit breaker somehow touches the outer case during activation, and the outer case is grounded, if that side of the CB is connected to the load it’s a non-issue. However, if the movable portion, now because of errant motion is touching ground, that would be a direct short if that post is connected to power. Harley shop manuals clearly state the polarity of the CB, but not why they are connected that way.
dp

I'd reduce the orifice to 1/16 inch and try it again. The new size should flow 64% of what you have with the 5/64 orifice.

Fourbybud

You wrote “Now when warmed up so much oil goes down the fill/breather tube that is blows back up into the cap and is spilling out? I'm thinking it needs a restriciton [sic] somewhere?”

Unless the drain tube is very close to a baffle, the short answer is yes. HH56 added the recommendation is a 5/64” orifice. I would place the orifice between the engine and the filter housing, because that would dramatically reduce the pressure in the filter housing, thus reducing the possibility of a gasket leak. Plus if the orifice is right at the engine, again as HH56 noted as the preferred configuration, the entire accessory equipment could fall off and you still only have a 5/64” hole leaking oil . . . not that that is acceptable, but is surely better than a ¼” hole.

If you solder and drill an orifice you might start a bit smaller than the recommended size, and re-evaluate the splash-back in the filler tube. I have some experience in drilling leaded carburetor jets . . . my advice would be don’t push too hard, if you do it makes something more like rifling than a smooth bore. I don’t think in your application rifling would matter at all, but in a carb jet it has a tendency to alter the jet’s flow and exit pattern. I have a carb jet flow rig (water not gas) for volume flow measurements. The rifling would put a twist in the flow, and direct the water flow off to one side.

With respect to the hole in the air filter. I’m at a loss, but I do have a question. Would the hole allow debris, or liquid to be directed into the throat of the carb? If it does I would find a thin fender washer to put under the wing nut while we’re gathering more information. Perhaps there was a tab washer that had a dimple that fit somewhat into the hole and allowed an anti-rotation feature for the wing nut . . . but that’s a SWAG!

dp

54ocmac

Take a look at Standard Motor Products SS544A . . . the description states ‘fender mounted’, but the bracket has the curvature to fit a starter. $40.79 + shipping + tax at RockAuto. I searched the RockAuto site for a ’54 Packard, and found all of the listed solenoids were the large format units, but stepping back to a ’53 Clipper produced the small format solenoid switch. If it matters, I’ve had the exact item on my ’48 with no apparent problems. I believe the OEM solenoid had a means to manually activate, whereas the modern equivalents do not have this feature. Echlin ST63 also appears to be a functional equivalent.

dp

Once the cable is clean has anyone considered the spray version of motorcycle chain lube? Low viscosity upon application, which will provide lots of wicking, but after a few minutes it’s a lot more like grease. Years ago it was also available as a liquid in a small applicator bottle . . . one drop per roller.

dp

Totally agree with comments made by HH56 and HPH. I know none of this was part of the original Packard design, and the cars worked just fine without electronic ignition, but if one wants to add such, then it should be with both eyes open.

I think the response to RICZ1953’s question should be “Yes, but the health/configuration of the rest of the starting system will determine your success rate. Experience suggests that the voltage available at the ignition module during cranking is the key characteristic of using a Pertronix module (note that ignition brand was not initial specified). An electronic ignition system will not likely cure existing starter system deficiencies, and the addition of an electronic ignition system may be detrimental to successful starting when paired with existing starter system deficiencies.”

I’m currently searching on whether a flooded cell battery would have more starting voltage droop when compared to an Optima AGM. So far I’ve found “AGM batteries also respond to loading better than flooded lead acid or gel batteries. They handle large power demands so well that they’re the go-to lead acid variety for start-stop vehicles.” I also found a site that explained a batteries’ aging process and a characteristic they called ‘voltage delay’, which results in less and delayed voltage at constant load. Still no hard numbers! With respect to the Pertronix question, if one battery design is better than another that information could be added to the collective tribal knowledge.

I’m thinking of running a test or two with an auxiliary battery powering the ignition only during starting. Right now, I have a pretty good idea on how my cars respond to being awoken from several weeks of rest. If adding 20 – 25% more spark energy makes any difference, I’ll report the findings. Remember during the transition from 6 to 12 volts the ballast resistor was not electrically in the starting circuit. . . that should tell us when it comes to starting ignition voltage ‘more is better’.

Dp