G'day Men, I read all the valuable comments about V8's on this website and I think some of the questions asked could be answered with the info contained in the attached article written some years ago by the late Dick Benjamin of Temecula, Southern CA. If it's already common knowledge then please take it easy on me.

Many will know that Dick was, apart from one of nature's true gentlemen, a very knowledgeable person about Packards and he emailed me a copy of this article after I bought my '56 Patrician from him. He said the article once appeared in the Cormorant and he gave me permission to use it wherever I could for the benefit of others, and it was recently published in our Club magazine, the Packardian. The copy I received from Dick wasn't the best resolution, but I hope it is helpful to someone else using this website. Regards, John

Attach file:

---

Size: 1,259.94 KB; Hits: 50

BDC comments "at 8o mph" ...phew! In my State in Aus, our max speed limit is 110 kph, which is about 68 mph. The highway patrols do enforce it and you can expect a hefty penalty if caught breaking it. I know Peter Packard has a propensity for moving things along with a heavy foot, but I wonder if he gets into atmosphere that high.

Thanks Rusty - I've tried "feeling" when the secondaries have come in but haven't managed it yet. I'll definitely try your other idea of having somebody keep watch on the carby while we give it a serve. Also, my tyres are 235 x 75 radials inflated to 35 psi and I reckon this, combined with gas shockers, means the car feels pretty sure footed on the road.

The other issue of course is fuel. I don't know whether our fuel is any different to yours, but the various brands available here certainly are different when it comes to the Patrician. I always us mid-range premium (95 RON) and it's not advertised as containing ethanol, but it might have some as from what I understand it only has to be stated if it's at least 10%. In any event, Shell and to a lesser extent Caltex, will make the old girl ping, but if I run her on BP, that's not an issue. Why so? Buggered if I know, except that both Shell and Caltex are able to be bought using supermarket fuel discount vouchers. Hmmm! Cheers, John

Thanks Men, much appreciated and very interesting. My car has the 3.54 rear end and if I compare it to the '55 400 mentioned in a couple of posts, I'm almost spot on with those 60 mph figures. BDC mentioned the adverse effects of a head wind on mileage and interestingly, the day I recorded the best mileage it was windy but I'm now thinking it might have been more a tail wind than head wind - does this reverse the head wind impact on mileage? Probably! So, maybe the good mileage figure is inflated and the real difference between the 55 mph the 60 mph figures is not as great as I thought.

I'd still be interested in any advice about checking the setting of the secondaries. I've read the service manual but either I didn't understand it or it doesn't go into much detail about it. Somebody recently suggested why not disconnect the linkage to the secondaries and monitor what happens (???). I have to admit I can't tell when the secondaries come in, although I appreciate that under acceleration that will be happening. But when cruising, I just don't know. Regards, John

G'day Guys, I've got a technical carby question about the mileage I've just recorded in my '56. I actually think the mileage is pretty good, although I stand to be corrected on that, but it is the variation that I'm asking about. Last week we travelled a total of over 450 miles (I won't talk metrics) on relatively flat country roads, and I did it in two distinct driving styles. The first and last totalled over 310 miles at speeds probably averaging around 60mph and achieved aussie 17.3 mpg (US 14.4 mpg). The middle bit was 140 miles at about 55 mph and that produced 21.6 mpg (US 18 mpg). Like I said, that seems pretty good to me but for a variation of only 5 mph in speed, mileage dropped by about 20%, which seems a fair bit.

I was wondering whether this might be due to the secondaries coming in too soon and if so, what is the best method of adjustment. I'm not overly concerned about power as I seem to have plenty but was thinking that for steady throttle cruising, shouldn't we only be running on two barrels. Mind you, this is only guesswork on my part as I really don't know whether I'm cruising on two or four barrels. Regards, John

Thanks Guys. Time for a report on what happened over the weekend, and I've got to say it's good news. We did a total of 550 miles under various conditions, most of which was highway but speed varied depending upon what we were doing, and the outside temperature determined whether to run the A/C or not. After saying all that the best mileage I recorded was 20.4 aussie mpg, which equates to 17.0 US mpg. That was for about 75 miles of pretty much flat highway at around 50 - 55 mph, and no A/C. The only other recording I have at the moment is 18.1 mpg (15.1 US mpg) for 160 miles involving high and low speed running, some hills and about 50% with A/C.

This is as good as it's been for a long time and best of all, it was trouble free motoring for the entire weekend. I can only put this down to two things, and based on what Ross has said, I'm not exactly sure if this could be why. Firstly, I redid the vacuum advance pipe connection at the distributor to try and eliminate any leakage (I didn't think there was any), plus the carby idling jet adjustment mentioned in a previous post. I did also knock the timing back fractionally but I didn't think this would make much difference, apart from potential pinging (there wasn't any). What I can say is that the engine is now idling nicely, pulls strongly from take off and feels good while cruising. I was unable to read Ross's post until we returned today so I was going to report that the idling jet adjustment did wonders for running and fuel economy, but now I won't!

I might try using a vacuum gauge just to see whether further improvement is available, and I assume the objective is to maximise the amount of vacuum being shown, similar to what I was doing with rev's. I have noted Ross' advice and definitely won't thinking about number of turns any more. I've got to say that fellas such as me, who are mechanically minded but don't have the wealth of experience that is available on this website, really appreciate the advice we receive from you knowledgeable gents. Thanks once again. Regards, John

Well, I gave it a shot but it wasn't as easy as I thought it would be. By that I mean there seemed a fair few turns between each end of the spectrum when rev's started to drop off and I wasn't confident in picking the right adjustment in between. I guess my ears aren't attuned well enough to pick up the subtle differences between good and not quite so good running. So, I came up with a brainwave, possibly. I connected up a digital tacho and did the same adjusting while keeping an eye on the rev's and set the jets where rev's were at max, then reset the idle speed, and then did it all again. Sounds OK but I haven't driven it anywhere yet. However, tomorrow we go on a Packard Club run for a few days and will cover approx 450 miles, hopefully trouble free. Regards, John

Thanks Ross, I reckon I can do that. It wasn't clear to me whether the number of turns was the critical factor, but based on what you've told me it's more to do with smooth running. From your explanation, I gather that the actual number of turns is also irrelevant between both jets - that is, they don't have to be the same. Also, this might be a silly question but once this is done, apart from smoother idling, do these jets have any other influence on the carb's operation when driving? Regards, John

Sorry Howard, wrong terminology. What I meant to say was when released, the pedal rose back to its original position and remained firm. I have actually had the firm pressure no braking experience but fortunately that occurred in the shed. I had just refitted the four reconditioned wheel cylinders, bled the brakes and was about to go on a test drive when pretty much zero braking was happening while reversing out of the shed, despite a very firm pedal. This prompted me to obtain a reco'ed BTV and fit that to the car, and it is this one that I think doesn't have quite enough boost. Prior to that, before the boost failed on the other BTV, touching the pedal would almost put you through the windscreen - too much boost! However, if I had to choose between the two, I would prefer a little less boost like now rather than too much like before. Regards, John

Couldn't agree more. I fitted a Pertronix kit to my '56 Pat and it has never given me any trouble. No dwell to worry about, just set the timing. I don't know about '55's but for my Delco distributor (#1110865) the Pertronix kit is #1183. I also fitted a Petronix flamethrower coil as well, which is supposed to produce a stronger spark. Regards, John

Over here in good old Oz, we have our natural disasters too, but I can't recall anything as powerful as this one. Our thoughts and prayers to those affected and we hope you are back on your feet pretty soon. Think positive and keep your chins up, John