Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

ok. so where does 440912 (ending in TWO) come from????

THe Sept 56 price list does indicate 440912 (ENDING IN TWO) and 476009 cranks ONLY. NO others.

Ok, now we have FIVE (5) different crank P/Ns to consider for the 55-56 V8s, with application as follows:

440594 - original cast crank, for 5540 (5522-42-47 bodies), per the parts book

440913 - original cast crank, for 5560-80, per parts book as of Nov. 1, 1955; this was replaced by 476009, per the numerical index, as revised July 1, 1956

476009 - original cast crank, for all 56th, per parts book of Nov. 1, 1955; then, for 5560-80 and all 56th, per parts book, as revised July 1, 1956

440912 - replacement crank (of unspecified type), for 5522-42-47 models (5540 chassis), per SSB No. 350 of December 1959

440989 - replacement forged crank, for 5560-80 and all 56th Series models, per SSB No. 350 of December 1959

..which can be summarized in two lines of supersession:

440594 => 440912

440913 => 476009 => 440989

Please be advised that I made a typo, in my post of 1/27 in this thread, regarding the P/N for the OE crankshaft for 5522-42-37, but am unable to edit that now. However, it is shown correctly here.

Nice catch by Randy on the supersession for 440913 by 476009. All three P/Ns for the OE cast cranks are shown in the Numerical Index, but not the forged. Now, the absence of those two P/Ns from that list doesn't mean the forged cranks didn't exist, but that they were not used to service Packard vehicles.

I then made my way down to the catacombs, here, and checked a couple of price books that I have. All three P/Ns for the original cast cranks are shown in the May 1956 edition of the Packard Parts Price List, but nothing shown for the other two replacing cranks. However, the March 1, 1957 edition of the combined Studebaker and Packard Parts and Accessories Price List does NOT show P/N 440954, and P/N 440913 advises "USE 476009". Curiously, P/N 440912 IS listed in that book, but NOT P/N 440989; this appearance predates SSB No. 350 by more than TWO YEARS.

So, it's still my gut feeling that the forged cranks were produced well before 1959, but for some other purpose, and that they were simply made available, later, as service replacements for these cars when the supply of original cast cranks was exhausted. Studebaker was just using up whatever stock they could, to avoid having to make more parts for these cars.

It could very well be that additional details regarding supersession were covered in some other prior document that we don't yet have - like a "Parts and Accessories Bulletin". An inspection of factory blueprints might also provide additional details, but those are out of my personal reach.

I wonder if the Studebaker National Museum has the blue prints on these?

Would be interesting to see what notes, or changes are mentioned on the blueprints.

I suspect that they might very well, but it's beyond my present means to pursue that research.

BH wrote:
"So, it's still my gut feeling that the forged cranks were produced well before 1959, but for some other purpose, and that they were simply made available, later, as service replacements for these cars when the supply of original cast cranks was exhausted."

Yes. Based on the standard MO of the auto industry, especialy of that era, BH's gut feeling is the most likely and probable. Note that the Studebaker historian in the one of the above quotes indicated that such items as heads and blocks were NLA at that time but that cranks WERE AVAIABLE???? THerefore it is most likely that subject cranks (forged) could have been left overs from some earlier production run. OR to put it another way: If Studebaker didn't bother to produce heads and blocks for service replacement ca. 1959 then why would they have bothered with cranks???? The only reasonable conjecture is that of BH's claim as quoted above.

From BH's post #43 above:

"..which can be summarized in two lines of suppersession:

440594 => 440912

440913 => 476009 => 440989"

Something peculiar there. I do not claim to be somekind of supply chain professional nor expert. BH is the only current member to fit that bill. But is it not peculiar that a supersesion (440912) would be ONLY ONE DIGIT off from a PREVIOUS number superceded (440913)????

From post #35 above:
"For some reason, the manual transmission bellhousing pattern seems to have survived as there are some with later casting date"

So were such bellhousings used in Marine or some other non-passenger car applications???? Mite thus explain the forged cranks.

At this point, pending any EMPIRICAL contradistions, i beleive that ANY Packard V8 crank is I'changelable with ANY OTHER packard V8 crank. The only diferences mite be in metelurgical strength or some other structural part of the crank that would present no problem with fitting the crank nor its service capacity except maybe under very extreme service demand. . Balancing irrelevant.

Bh's post #43 above needs to be book marked, or PostIt noted or what method is used to keep it easily accessed,searched for, or referenced for the future.