Re: 1954 Packard Pacific gas tank sending unit.

Posted by DavidPackard On 2023/4/8 0:12:07

54packpac: I know this has all been covered earlier, but I would like to throw my 2¢ in.

I’m on the side of not cutting a hole, and assuming the fuel tank might be removed ultimately it comes down to whether the straps can be loosened. I know it’s not a Packard, but I dropped the 42 gallon tank in my Suburban to replace the fuel pump. That job is somewhat complicated by the design of the GM ‘easy-on’ hoses. I used a 1000 lb motorcycle jack to lower the tank . . . using a ½ ton jack is gross over kill, an empty tank with a few gallons of gas is not all that heavy, but the MC jack gave me a generous bearing area. When I was doing that job I sure wished GM had put a trap door for me to gain access, and I thought of putting one in as soon as the tank was removed. Ultimately there was a cargo floor stiffener right in the way, so that modification didn’t happen. Fast forward 6-7 years, and I had to replace the fuel pump in a Honda Civic. That car had a removable panel that once removed the pump was easily accessed. The whole job is done while kneeling in the back seat area . . . same with the Odyssey van, so some manufacture’s do include maintenance access panels. Even after experiencing the ease of the working on the Honda cars, I still don’t thing I would cut a hole in the Packard trunk floor. I worked with a former GM test engineer that had story after story of quick access holes they cut into their test mules. His estimate of fuel pump R&R times, they sounded more like NASCAR pit stop times, may have gotten me thinking about an access panel in the first place.

Back to syphoning the tank. The Packard design of placing the fill pipe in the bottom of the bottom sheet metal stamping makes syphoning most of the fuel out of the tank pretty easy. Even more fuel can be removed from the tank if you slightly jack-up the right side of the car. Pre-measure and mark the syphon hose length . . . you’ll want it to stop within ± ½ inch of entering the tank proper. The last bend in the filler pipe should push the hose to the bottom of the tank. If you decide to drain the tank take HH56’s advice on avoiding too much torque on the drain bung. Because of the possibility of damage to the bung I would syphon v drain, and please if you do decide to drop the tank don’t use your lungs as a source of initial vacuum to start the syphon.

IMO an access panel to replace an infrequently replaced part is questionable, but if you must would you consider cutting the hole after the tank is removed? It sounds like that is the current plan . . . subject to change. The two concerns are those already mentioned, that is, the potential of a stray spark, even though the description of the Eastwood tool claims that there will be no sparks. The second concern is damage to the bits and pieces between the trunk floor and the tank . . . that would also include the tank itself. If you press-on with the plan of cutting the panel with the tank installed, please roll the car outside.

Now we’re at the point where ‘best practices’ suggests removal the fuel tank to cut a maintenance access for the fuel level sender that may fail some years in the future. If you find the tank removal is relatively easy will you proceed with the modification? That would reduce the problem statement to expending some actual number of labor today adding the access panel to save some potential labor replacing a second sending unit in the future. An odometer makes a pretty good gas gauge, so I view a broken gas gauge as a maintenance action that can be deferred.

I’m out of pocket change. dp