Packard Forum Index » Project Blogs

Since it was bothering me, I did some more research and a measurement or two on the frames for the Caribbean and the Clipper.

The part numbers are different for the Convertible and hardtop frames, but my suspicions were that it could be due to the additional bracing the convertibles received and not necessarily due to any changes to the frame. In my head it didn't make economic sense that a car company would make maintain different frames entirely for different bodies, likewise, if the running gear and the doors, fenders, etc were all interchangeable with a Clipper, then the frame can't be that far off.

According to the 1951-1954 Packard Service and Selling Manual frame section (I attached the page), while there were 4 different model ranges, the measurements only vary once, between the 250 and 300's. Also, the entirety of the difference happens between mounting points C and D (which are the final two outriggers of the 5 that run all in parallel. But additionally, the U brace (at B) and Z brace at A are 5" further back, which isn't possible on the shorter frame, so the side frame rails themselves would be different.

In summary, essentially if it's a 300 series frame, then the frame wouldn't work.

The point of reference seemed a bit arbitrary to me, but since measurement H is the same across both versions of the frame, I measured from H to C, and rather than dead center the hole, I figured that just going from the front of H to the back of C would tell me if it was 5" off or not.

On the Clipper frame that looks so pretty in the pictures above, the measurement from the outrigger at H and the one at C are 67" measured from outside to outside.

On the Caribbean frame, with the body mounted it's still easy to see where the outriggers bolt on, especially since a lot of the floor is rusted away there. :D From H to C, it measures 67" inches as well, so it confirms that the shorter version of the frame was used for the Caribbean as well. There is maybe an 1/8th inch steel plate welded to the bottom of the big X brace only. (Can't see the top yet.) The metal frame itself doesn't appear to be any thicker, but once the body's off, I can get a micrometer on it. Having stared at the thing for a few dozen hours wirewheeling and sandblasting though, I'd be prepared to vouch that it's not any different.

I know that it's not definitive, and I can't confirm if the outriggers are higher or lower, but they're all in the right place (which means they can be swapped if necessary.) I'll know more in a couple of weeks when I can brace the Caribbean body and get it off of the frame to measure and see the top.

Hopefully this info will help someone else one day, too.

So Mr Lincoln's not dead, but his suit will require a bit of easy tailoring. Now I'm glad my wife stopped me before I could paint the bottom of that frame, should make for an easy weld. :)

Attach file:

---

  (84.89 KB)

Also, on reflection, it makes sense that the Caribbean would use the shorter frame (at least for '53), because otherwise it would already have the Senior quarter panels since that part of the body would be necessarily different to accomodate the larger frame, and they wouldn't have had to be leaded in.

Quote:

So just to clarify, the Caribbean frame definitely has lower plates only on the X-member, nothing on the siderails. I can't attest to the tops yet, though.

Outrigger location is correct, but can't confirm height yet, and according to the service manual, it's possible to drill out the rivets and replace them if necessary, so if needed I can swap the outriggers from the old car to the new.

So no bubble bursted here. So far, so good.

Finally got ready to work on it again - the next big thing needed to be accomplished was to get rid of the old rusted frame so that the body floor can be repaired and then installed on the new frame, so it took me some time to string enough hours together (and muster the courage!) to do it.

Here are some pictures of the bracing, which was done with angle iron and a welder.

Attach file:

---

  (64.38 KB)


  (53.93 KB)

And finally, about 2 weekends ago, bit the bullet and lifted the body off the frame. Although I was nervous the entire time, lifting the body off the frame went absolutely beautifully. Using an engine hoist, I lifted the front onto a pair of 2x4's across a set of sawhorses, then lifted the rear just long enough to roll the frame out from under it.

Set it all back down on a set of mover's dollys and back into the garage while I plan out the next phase.

As we discussed before, the outrigger supports are different between the Caribbean and the Clipper 4 door, because the convertibles have an extra box steel under the body, so I ground off the rivets and popped them off the Caribbean frame. There's also one additional one compared to the Clipper, so I get to drill a few holes.

Having both frames off and side-by-side, there is no extra bracing on the side rails, but if you look at the area where the X joins up to the side rails, right at the front fenders, I can see how it looks that way, but it's just the overlapping steel sections, not added plating from hardtop to convertible. The only additional metal is the top and bottom of the X brace, which has already been welded on and taken care of.

I'm thinking my next step is going to be to rebuild the suspension, front and back, so that I can move the frame around easier, which will make the rest of the restoration much easier as well - dollying the thing in and out of the garage on jacks is getting old, fast. Especially after dropping it on my foot last time.

Unfortunately, thanks to new laws in Texas, the Packard is back on hold while I get the Triumph ready to pass inspection again. Starting this year, they won't allow us to renew the registration without passing inspection each time, (the car has been parked for 2-3 years.) The reason THAT'S a problem, is that according to the law, if we lapse on registration, then we lose the ability to ever use the current Year of Manufacture plates on the car ever AGAIN. (We have a set of original 5 digit plates from 1967.)

Also because of their prior law (which we just barely beat the deadline on THAT one, too!) we won't be able to use Year of Manufacture plates at all as a Classic Car, we'd have to register as an Antique Car, which then limits your use to only to and from exhibitions, shows, and shops.

So I'll have to get the car out, clean it up, get it running again, check out all the safety inspection stuff and drive it to the nearest inspection station and back.

It's not that I won't enjoy doing it, I just resent being forced to do it.

Attach file:

---

  (75.64 KB)


  (68.28 KB)


  (84.88 KB)


  (50.78 KB)

Oh, as a footnote, I ordered the bushings for the rear leaf springs and shackles today. The cheapest price I could find from the known Packard suppliers seemed to be $10 a piece, which is a lot when you need 12 to repair both sides. I figured I could do better, so I went and did some research.

I pulled the bushings from the shackle and the front of the spring, and they're both marked as Harris 60889. I didn't find any online, or on a cross-reference, but I found a list of Harris Bushings on several truck sites.

My thinking was that HB889 might be close to the 60889, so I confirmed their measurements with the ones I took from the bearing in my grubby fist, and found they were within 1/16" of what I came up with (and upon remeasuring, their measurement is likely the correct one.)

So instead of ordering 12 bushings from our known suppliers at $10 a pop for a total of $120 + shipping, the best price I ended up with washttp://www.truckspring.com, at $1.01/ea. Shipping was more expensive than the cost of all the bushings together, but at $25 instead of $120+shipping, I'm not complaining at all.

I'll add this to the Parts Cross-ref as well.

New bushings are in - here is the old and new together. The new is maybe 1-2mm less width across the wide part, but it doesn't appear enough to make a difference.

Attach file:

---

  (57.57 KB)

Started work on the leaf springs this weekend - almost finished. I've ordered the replacement rebound clips, so they can get all put back together and back on the frame.

I disassembled the springs from the Clipper, which were in great shape, and the Caribbean, which were in less good shape - after deliberating for a bit, I decided to refurb the Clipper springs and use those instead of trusting the much more pitted and corroded Caribbean ones. The Caribbeans have a SLIGHTLY stiffer spring rate, but I'm willing to bet most of the difference has gone out the door with the metal that was lost due to rust.

The other bit to make my decision is that Kanter doesn't seem to differentiate between the 51-54 leaf springs at all, on their website, so if I were to buy a new replacement I'd likely end up with the same springs from the Clipper anyway, only probably without the isolators and grooved spring steel that Packard actually used back then.

After going over them thoroughly with a wirewheel, I gave them a couple of coats with zinc paint, since zinc helps fight corrosion, and is supposed to have awesome wear characteristics (we'll see how that goes). Now they're reassembled with the isolators, and I'm going to give them a coat of black tomorrow.

Also, I left out the helper spring, which is probably something that the clipper owner added when he added the trailer hitch. I'm hanging onto it for now, but likely if the spring rate doesn't work out, I'll just pull the trigger on some new springs rather than add the helper spring back. I have a feeling it'll be fine though.

Goal is to have a rolling chassis by the end of April!

Attach file:

---

  (34.28 KB)


  (65.23 KB)


  (50.21 KB)

Quote:

I'm curious about the Clipper you are using for the donor frame. Granted it is a minuscule amount on both dimensions but specs say the frame rails are thicker and wider on convertibles as compared to a Clipper sedan. No idea how much difference in stiffness but without any extra bracing I expect every little bit would count and might be needed on a rear heavy Caribbean.

The only difference is the frame rails for the X - if there's a difference in the width, or even the thickness of the metal of the side rails that run lengthwise down the car, it's not a difference that I could get to show up on my micrometer. :)

The body itself has an additional square steel reinforcement that runs down the side, but it's welded to the body and bolted to the frame, not the other way around. That's actually why the outriggers are different, is to account for the extra 2" or so square steel support under the body.