G'day Fellas, I mentioned in my topic about rear axle bearings that I was also going to renew the brakes with woven linings hoping to achieve better braking with reduced pedal pressure. The job's just been completed so I thought you might like an update. By the way, I wasn't familiar with woven brake lining material and was advised to use this by the brake and clutch shop. Interestingly, the fellow behind the counter who advised that also reckoned that I'd get better braking with similar length linings at the rear, but more on this later.

Because of the length of this car and the difficulties in my shed of being able to get both ends high enough to work on, I decided it would be better to work on each end as a separate project. Completing the fronts first would also allow me to attend the Studebaker Club's concours (last Saturday) before attacking the rears. So, wheel cylinders were dissassembled, cleaned and lubed, and then reassembled with new cups. The newly relined shoes were then fitted and brakes adjusted and bled. The drums had been machined about 18 months ago so were left as is. The drive to the concours showed some improved braking but not significantly so.

Next the rears. After dismantling I spoke to the fellow who actually does the machining at the brake shop and he was strongly opposed to having similar length linings so I told him to do what he thought best. What was particularly interesting was his advice that the rear (rivetted) linings and drums were heavily glazed and their contribution to the braking effort would have been bugger all. Was this the cause of my braking woes? Time would tell. Anyway, the drums were machined and new woven linings fitted to the shoes. The assembly process was the same as the fronts, which included doing the wheel cylinders with new cups and bleeding. An initial drive showed some definite improvement and hopefully the improvement will continue as the linings bed-in.

I've attached some pic's so that others not familiar with woven linings can see for themselves. The first two are the fronts and the ones branded made in Brazil are the rears.

By the way, I'm now starting to think a little more about a remote master cylinder reservoir as it's a real PITA trying to add fluid down under the steering column. Has anyone done this and how did you approach the plumbing part of it?

Attach file:

---

  (142.85 KB)


  (180.38 KB)


  (157.59 KB)

Thanks for the info fellas. I haven't had any previous Packard experience with sealed bearings so the plan now is to drive until something doesn't sound right and attack it then. By the way, having had a '46 Clipper Deluxe before this car I am familiar with shimming out the rear axles to get the right amount of end-play and you're right, it is a pain in the proverbial. Cheers, John

Thanks OD, I was afraid someone would say that. I guess we must assume that Packard expected these bearings to last for life, why else would they fit something unserviceable. It wouldn't be to save a dollar or two, would it?

I've fitted the front brake shoes and am about to start on the rears. I'll report back how it all turns out. Cheers, John

G'day Fellas, I need a little of your expert advice. This may have been a previous topic but my search didn't turn anything up. As my Patrician seems to be going through a service or replace phase, I'm trying to get ahead of the game.

In a previous topic I spoke about brakeing issues, specifically that the reco'ed BTV has insufficient power boost for my liking. I had the front brakes relined about 18 months ago but this didn't help. Yesterday I went back to the brake place and they suggested that "woven" linings, although a little dearer, would make the world of a difference. So, I had already bought a replacement set of shoes from Mike Dulinski and I'm now getting them relined with woven at the moment. After this I plan to have the rear shoes relined with the same stuff, which incidentally my brake specialist said would work much better if both shoe linings were the same size. I can't recall if they are different sizes like the fronts, but will give his idea a go if they are.

This brings me to the reason for this topic. While I'm fiddling about on the rear end, is it possible to regrease the wheel bearings? I think I recall reading somewhere that it is possible to do some modification to enable regreasing, but I can't remember exactly what it was or where it is. Other than that, do I just have to wait until the bearings need to be replaced? If it is this then I hope I'm not caught out wherever I am at the time. Cheers, John

G'day Fellas, I too was going to fit the later integrated Ford box when I had this project in my shed but got stymied when I found out its three mounting bolt holes didn't exactly line up with those in the modified chassis. This is why I decided to leave the earlier Ford box fitted. I thought about modifying the chassis to make the later box fit but was advised that when the chassis was modified for RHD, crush tubes were welded in place for the mounting bolts to pass through, and further modification now seemed a little beyond my level of expertise. I actually had bought a fully reco'ed integrated box for the purpose and still have it stored somewhere in the shed. As you know though, The earlier box requires a hydraulic ram to provide the power assist and reusing the Packard one means that it has to be flipped 180 degrees which then results in the hydraulic hoses being fitted from underneath, rather than from above like they do with LHD. I was going to suss out whether an earlier RHD steering ram might be able to be fitted instead, but didn't get that far.

By the way, if I recall correctly the fellow who did the RHD conversion was quite specific in wanting to retain all surrounding fittings in there correct positions. I think the only concession was that the steering column had to pushed a little further into the cabin because it had to be angled a little lower to clear the air/heating system (I think). Cheers, John

Sorry Howard, I meant to reply to your query about the pressure hose but got involved with something else and forgot. The new pressure hose does have the restrictor fitted and I actually asked why is it needed - was it to reduce pressure? The answer I was given is that pressure remains the same either side of the restrictor. However, what it does do is reduce flow volume which, if left unaltered, will result in steering so light that it would be almost uncontrollable. I can't verify this but the fella who told me was an older hydraulic serviceman who seemed to know what he was talking about. He was the one who sent me away to recheck why the ram hoses had worn the way they had. Hope this sheds some light on the subject and sorry once again for taking so long to reply. Cheers, John

G'day Men, Firstly a correction. The hose was rubbing on the torsion bar, not the steering column. Yes, MM prices would have been cheaper but when you factor in shipping costs and the exchange rate, the cost would probably have been similar, and I only had to wait a couple of days. You may not know that shipping from the US to Australia has become enormously expensive in recent years. For example, that diff pinion yoke I bought a couple of months ago cost around $145 all up, nearly half of which was for shipping, and it took 3 weeks to get here. To be honest, these days I try to exhaust all other possible avenues of purchase before going to the US, but having an American car usually means I'm locked in to the US. I hope I'm generating some sympathy for your poor downunder cousins here. Cheers, John

Thanks for the advice OD & Warren. Problem's now pretty much under control and the job should be completed tomorrow. But first an apology for misleading y'all. I misread my writing and didn't check my initial post properly - it should have said that my ram hoses were 11.25" long, not 17.25". Anyway, the cause of the wear was from rubbing on each other and on the steering column. I think that because one hose is too long it was resting on top of the other rather than both nesting together. Also, I might have made the situation worse when last year I removed the ram to fit a seal kit and could have allowed the hoses to sit too high when refitted.

Two new hoses have been made to OD's spec's, and fitted, and tomorrow I'll fit the new pump hoses. I don't know about over there but here in good old Oz it's a bloody expensive business. Four new hoses, fittings and clamps cost $420, so I'm feeling a little fragile at the moment. Hope I haven't been skun! The new hose supplier said that he was certain the old hoses would have been factory originals which suggests the factory either fitted two long ones, rather than one long and one short, or factory spares have been retro fitted. In any event, if they were the originals they've lasted a hell of a long time. Cheers, John

G'day Fellas, I've sprung a leak in the Patrician's pressure hose so I'm going to renew the lot. My question relates to the two small hoses from the control valve to the ram. According to the parts book there is a long one and a short one, but both mine are the same length at about 17.25". Is someone able to tell me what the correct lengths are? The reason for being fussy is that both are showing considerable wear from rubbing on something, or each other, which could be because of incorrect length. I have to get back under to closely examine the car's underbody so see if there are any obvious wear spots and hope to do that tomorrow. I'm getting new hoses made up by a hydraulic hose specialist and he thought that these hoses would go down from the control valve to the ram, but mine went up and across. The diagram in the parts book indicates that up is correct. Any advice regarding this would also be greatly appreciated. Regards, John

I've come across the attached diagram of a '56 front assembly and I can't identify those bits that Warren was asking about, but maybe the diagram will be helpful in the assembly process anyway. It's for a 4 door but 2 doors are probably the same, although maybe they have something extra. Cheers, JP


Sorry, can't get the diagram to load - will try again later. Had to go for lesser resolution so hopefully it can still be read OK.

Attach file:

---

  (192.67 KB)