HH56 wrote:
Absolutely get in touch with Mr Pushbutton for his thoughts on the subject but if you want one of his rebuilt stock Packard units, unless things have changed in the last year or two I believe he may have an arrangement with one of the vendors to handle sales. The last time I spoke with someone buying a rebuilt unit they were also quite expensive -- and much more so without an old one to return.

For my two cents, I think the idea has merit as Packard actuators do have some issues that might be able to be eliminated with something plug in but a bit more robust. If you come up with something plug in that can use stock PBs, not only could it be used with a stock Ultramatic, possibly with a slight mechanical change and a bit of different programming it might also be adaptable to those who might want to or have already converted to the GM transmissions. There has even been some thoughts of using an 80s era Rolls Royce actuator for the GM conversions.

Regarding your question on strength: the original actuator was a bit weak in one area. It was fine for changing from one gear to another 99 percent of the time but if the car was parked on an incline or hard against a curb with tire pushback, with force of the tire or the weight of the car pushing against the parking pawl, the motor often did not have enough power to pull the pawl out of the parking gear. In those situations the car was locked in park until some means was found (often a tow truck) to remove the weight from the pawl.

On the speed, I doubt if anyone has measured it precisely but from this video posted by Mr Pushbutton it appears to take 2-3 seconds.

For whatever you come up with for a drive, since you are going to use a microcontroller setup to activate it, I think it would be good to go with some kind of direct optical encoder feedback off the actuator and have the microprocessor count pulses to determine exactly how many complete or partial revs of the motor it takes to determine where to stop. After spending years working on medical equipment that relied on precision potentiometers to determine positions of various items, I will disagree with Pgh Ultramatic on the point of trying to rely on a varying analog voltage to precisely control the stop points. Granted, it might be easier and maybe less expensive but even the most precision of pots do vary slightly in repeatability. A bit of corrosion on a connection, wiper, or in the suggested push button divider circuit can also affect a voltage enough that it could change stop points enough to matter. While the Ultramatic is not nearly as critical an application, the issue was noticeable enough in a clean environment so unless you get sealed components and take extra care with connectors I would wonder how the harsh conditions -- heat, vibration, dirt, grease, moisture, etc -- in a car would contend. The downside to using digital and microcontrollers is to remember that power in cars of that era was quite dirty. There was no consideration given to surges and spikes caused by relay or switch contacts operating and motor brush noise will be a serious issue. You will need to filter the heck out of things and even then, if a long run is involved, your 3.3 volts could be seriously affected.

Packard's fingers did a good job of finding the precise place to stop and I would try to duplicate that precision as much as possible. Optical sensors positioned much like the fingers might work but they would have to be mounted on a special new support which might be hard to place and also be weather resistant.

To go along with concerns about electrical position error, I would also suggest placing the actuator at the transmission to avoid introducing any mechanical error via slop from the cable and attachment points into the mix. Since the detents are part of the valve body, unlike the manual handle where you can feel if slop has developed or if you are fully in a position or not, if the motor stops where it thinks a gear is positioned but cable or mechanical slop adds an error and the motor has stopped with the valve between detents all kinds of problems will result.

No idea which type mechanisms you are considering but there are some rotary actuators that might also fit your requirements. Here is a actuator company with a good selection of types.

If you have not already looked it over, the original Autolite manual for the Packard system can be downloaded. Other than current draw, I don't remember if there are any other specs mentioned on the original motor parameters.

HH56 wrote:
Absolutely get in touch with Mr Pushbutton for his thoughts on the subject but if you want one of his rebuilt stock Packard units, unless things have changed in the last year or two I believe he may have an arrangement with one of the vendors to handle sales. The last time I spoke with someone buying a rebuilt unit they were also quite expensive -- and much more so without an old one to return.

For my two cents, I think the idea has merit as Packard actuators do have some issues that might be able to be eliminated with something plug in but a bit more robust. If you come up with something plug in that can use stock PBs, not only could it be used with a stock Ultramatic, possibly with a slight mechanical change and a bit of different programming it might also be adaptable to those who might want to or have already converted to the GM transmissions. There has even been some thoughts of using an 80s era Rolls Royce actuator for the GM conversions.

Regarding your question on strength: the original actuator was a bit weak in one area. It was fine for changing from one gear to another 99 percent of the time but if the car was parked on an incline or hard against a curb with tire pushback, with force of the tire or the weight of the car pushing against the parking pawl, the motor often did not have enough power to pull the pawl out of the parking gear. In those situations the car was locked in park until some means was found (often a tow truck) to remove the weight from the pawl.

On the speed, I doubt if anyone has measured it precisely but from this video posted by Mr Pushbutton it appears to take 2-3 seconds.

For whatever you come up with for a drive, since you are going to use a microcontroller setup to activate it, I think it would be good to go with some kind of direct optical encoder feedback off the actuator and have the microprocessor count pulses to determine exactly how many complete or partial revs of the motor it takes to determine where to stop. After spending years working on medical equipment that relied on precision potentiometers to determine positions of various items, I will disagree with Pgh Ultramatic on the point of trying to rely on a varying analog voltage to precisely control the stop points. Granted, it might be easier and maybe less expensive but even the most precision of pots do vary slightly in repeatability. A bit of corrosion on a connection, wiper, or in the suggested push button divider circuit can also affect a voltage enough that it could change stop points enough to matter. While the Ultramatic is not nearly as critical an application, the issue was noticeable enough in a clean environment so unless you get sealed components and take extra care with connectors I would wonder how the harsh conditions -- heat, vibration, dirt, grease, moisture, etc -- in a car would contend. The downside to using digital and microcontrollers is to remember that power in cars of that era was quite dirty. There was no consideration given to surges and spikes caused by relay or switch contacts operating and motor brush noise will be a serious issue. You will need to filter the heck out of things and even then, if a long run is involved, your 3.3 volts could be seriously affected.

Packard's fingers did a good job of finding the precise place to stop and I would try to duplicate that precision as much as possible. Optical sensors positioned much like the fingers might work but they would have to be mounted on a special new support which might be hard to place and also be weather resistant.

To go along with concerns about electrical position error, I would also suggest placing the actuator at the transmission to avoid introducing any mechanical error via slop from the cable and attachment points into the mix. Since the detents are part of the valve body, unlike the manual handle where you can feel if slop has developed or if you are fully in a position or not, if the motor stops where it thinks a gear is positioned but cable or mechanical slop adds an error and the motor has stopped with the valve between detents all kinds of problems will result.

No idea which type mechanisms you are considering but there are some rotary actuators that might also fit your requirements. Here is a actuator company with a good selection of types.

If you have not already looked it over, the original Autolite manual for the Packard system can be downloaded. Other than current draw, I don't remember if there are any other specs mentioned on the original motor parameters.

R H wrote:
Nice work John.

I put splints on to keep wire from bending at solder joints

kevinpackard wrote:
Mr. Pushbutton - thanks for chiming in! I probably should rewire the whole TL system at some point. There is definitely still a problem in the "down" circuit and I haven't pulled everything back apart to check it all. Ground is not consistently sent to the solenoid. I'll double check the heater contact in the box and the wire connections at the limit switch to see what's up. If I can get everything working consistently now then I'll run with that and plan a full rewire a bit later. My only available parking spot is where the lift is, and I have several projects lined up to use the lift over the next month or two and I will need the 400 to be able to move and drive and get out of the way. I know I can drive without TL, but it will also need to go on the road as I test and repair other problems. That is some beautiful soldering by the way.

Carfreak - thanks for letting me know. I'm so used to the '51-54 cars and am finding that the '56 is a different beast altogether. It seemed the '51-54's tended to sit in the middle or right above the middle, and run at about 175-190 typically. Good to know that other '56's are reading low. As long as it's not a problem then I will leave the temperature concerns alone. I'll probably drain and flush the system before summer time for good measure.

PGH - I may take you up on acquiring the supplies to rewire the TL. Again, probably not a project that I can/should do right now but I have no problem doing it before this year is up.

What soldering gun is everyone using? I'm using a smaller pencil-type because I do a lot of soldering on small electronics. But it really doesn't have enough juice to handle larger wires like these cars have.

Pgh Ultramatic wrote:
Kevin,

I happen to be making a 56 TL harness for another customer pretty soon. So of course I could make you one as well, or if you want to DIY it I will have the materials on hand in a couple weeks. Could sell you a kit for ¢¢ instead of $$ so to speak.

Quote:

Mr.Pushbutton wrote:
I have observed that car guys that are great mechanics are rarely good at soldering or frankly anything electrical.

This is pretty true and I don't know why it is. Good soldering, much like good welding, mainly requires just three things: knowledge of what a good joint looks like, decent equipment, and some practice. Unlike welding, though, the investment for a decent soldering setup is only like $50 nowadays, and can be used or stored almost anywhere. And like welding, it's hard to have a good substitute for it. When you need it, you need it.