Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

Having a little more knowledge of early american auto manufacturers than most of my contemporaries due to a devoted interest and appreciation since childhood, the idea of preservation of important and historic automobiles seems a noble venture though in earlier years I was much more interested in Hot Rodding, engine performance, custom paint and suspension engineering. When this Packard "found me" I was unaware of some of the engineering firsts attributed to Packard nor the interesting features of the V8 era cars. Lets not discount Packards contribution to the war effort of WWII. The high options along with the auto-leveling torsion bar suspension and wonder bar in the dash were what sealed the deal for aquiring this Clipper. Preservation of unique features in an automobile especially when the engineering behind them was cutting edge for their time is just another part of making the hobbie more enjoyable. I dont think you need be a strict preservationist to do so nor do I believe enjoying and driving a Packard, or any old vehicle precludes someone from making changes or upgrades to make the drive safer,more reliable, and moer enjoyable. We would never think of removing the torsion bar set up to install air bag adjustable ride in its place because it is a fairly well engineered and resilliant design and is part of the 55-57s charm. As far as the BTV it is a bendix part and I have never had one "go out" on me as others have so I will differ that topic. I will say however that I personally have had total brake failures on post 1980 cars that was not supposed to be able to happen so beware no system is 100% fulproof. I am a little dissapointed with the opinions on here about the oil pump and oil system of the V8s and I do feel it merits a more sympathetic approach. Some posts I've read seem to aggressively discourage upgrading and reusing the Packard pump. Is there a vested interest in failure of this attempt? ie selling an adaptor. I have no problem with monetary gain and recouping R+D time of successful mods but I am on board with a redesign of the original to preserve the vacuum pump and I would caution people not to discourage ones who try. Just looking at the pump. I believe there is a solution. I would like to see a taller oil pump gear and a shorter by about half with 4 or more vanes as necessary. If a taller gearset of the same diameter is available-a left over pump body could be milled down and drilled and pinned to extend the body accordingly and keep the halfs aligned. With a thicker baseplate others have shown and a drive gear support and a slot to oil the shaft as per the chev design I would pin the pressure relief for max and install a pressure relief at the left frt head so as to compensate for the sharp 90s and small galleys that are assuredly causing pressure drops to the top end. A solid mount pickup could now be lower in the stock pan eliminating the "lift problems" of drawing oil up that some say is a factor. Ideally I would then like to see the vacuum pump body and vane block milled by half and 2 more slots and vanes added and all this inside the stock pan. Anyone who has dealt with transmission front pumps will not dispute a much thinner vane pump with a few more vanes to be highly effective in creating vacuum and drawing volume on the intake side. Could all this be done with an end mill and drill press? can someone send me 2 pump assemblies for r+d if they have extra? If we are going to put an olds pump and a touqueflight on the engine we may as well just swap in a sbc and th350. Not that there is anything taboo about that for a restomod driver or hot rod. Just my 2 cents.
The tools dont make the mechanic. The mechanic makes the tools- when needed

BTW if this is the wrong forum for this. admin feel free to move it accordingly

Try making some paragraphs. Your rant was hard to read.

IMO, there are TWO reasons why V-8 Packards got parked back in the day:

1) Twin-Ultramatic failures

2) Oil pump failures/deficiencies.

Today, there are solutions for both.

Neither solution(s) can be seen from the outside. Packard engineers screwed up on both counts, but that doesn't mean that WE have to live with those screw ups.

If you want to try to fix either one, then you are just "putting lipstick on a pig."

Craig

No rant here. Just observations. I am not someone who had my cars judged at shows nor was I one to criticize others for modifications but I do feel the twin ultramatic is worthy of tweeking and preserving in these vehicles. A lock up convertor in 55! just 30 years ahead of the curve. GM had 30 years to perfect it and still had issues. (th125 converter sticking and stalling engines when hot) Lets not forget other makers auto trans failures back in 50. Lets agree to disagree on it.
AS far as paragraph indentations making it clearer for you- no prob.
I will eliminate some of the more technical stuff for you in the future too.
I respect more the people driving long distances in tours and rallies with unmodified vehicles of the 20s,30s,40,or 50s regardless of the make!

A lock up convertor in 55

Actually, a lock-up converter in 1949.

CustomClipper55 Quote:

Boy, that's a laugh. I am a graduate engineer and was a rocket scientist for NASA during Apollo (7 thru 12).

"technical stuff"? Bring it.

However, as I said above, your technical writing skills could use improvement.

Craig