HPH

I do not know for sure that all 3 senders have the same signaling scheme. I’m leaning toward ‘yes’, but only from a position of minimum production costs.

For the 22nd and 23rd series if the gauge pegs up-scale then the logic is identical. I believe the oil pressure gauge pegs down-scale, so the logic is not identical, but could be simply reversed. Selecting down-scale for the oil pressure could be an application of displaying the most alarming indication if an instrument error occurs.

Backing-up a bit . . . Howard dug-out the referenced Service Counselor. This same test procedure is in the ’54 manual (likely applicable 51-54). While the procedure seems to be the same the test results are for the applicable models for that manual.

Back to the production costs: If I was in the business of making Packard instrument gauges I would surely use the same heaters across the board, so your question about electrically identical is likely well founded. The sweep of the gauges seem to be the same, so the deflection of the bimetal is likely similar. The oil pressure logic change could be handled by reverse winding of the bimetal, or using the same bimetal with a linkage change. For the oil pressure sending unit ZERO pressure should have the greatest resistance (low/no heating current). I do not know if that sending unit operates via pulse width modulation, or variable resistance via diaphragm deflection. Again, if I was making the gauges I would lean to using the pulse width technique . . . however the oil pressure ‘sending unit’ is subjected to engine temperature, so that would need to be accommodated in the calibration.

dp

HPH

The data applies to the temperature gauge only. I was trying to get more than 3 calibration points, so I estimated a 10-point scheme. Zero is COLD, 100 is HOT.

The nonlinear characteristic may be the age of the test article alone. I could be a bit of roughness in the 'normal operating' positions.

Howard

I believe the gauge will function OK with steady state current levels, albeit lower than the peak value in the pulse width modulated scheme. I'm trying to hold the bimetal at a particular temperature, and I can get there with a steady heat input, or on/off cycles of, when on, excessive heat input . . . much like heating a home in the mild weather.

IIRC doesn’t the service data indicate that a fuel sending unit may be used to trouble-shoot either the fuel level or coolant temperature instruments? If my memory hasn’t turned to mush it would then be a question of resistor values and calibration. I’ll sign-up for if I ever have my fuel tank removed I will repeat the ‘fixed resistor’ test on that instrument.

dp

HPH

Here’s the data I recorded on my ’48. The test set-up featured a rheostat/potentiometer in lieu of the cylinder head sensor. What I didn’t record, but would likely be a second order effect, was the ambient air temperature. I think I also had a battery charger hooked up just in case the voltage regulator output was dependent on the input voltage.

dp

Attach file:

---

48TemperatureGauge.pdf Size: 415.35 KB; Hits: 19

See post #7 in this thread.

https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=18059&forum=2&post_id=179582#forumpost179582


dp

hph

See the 6 part Weber State presentation on universal joints.


https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=weber+state+university+universal+joint+repair&mid=867BFD15D883D1662255867BFD15D883D1662255&FORM=VIRE


Edit: Sorry that link didn't work . . . seems it goes to a Weber Grill site. A search for the text "weber state university universal joint repair" works.

dp

hph

Does service data indicate the end cover wear tolerance, or a lapping procedure to restore the cover finish?

dp

Dhart1977
A Carter 502S is a carburetor intended for a Hudson, with 1.187 main venturi diameter, and 1.25 throttle plate diameter. The 502 does have anti-percolation valves, but no starter switch or distributor vacuum port.

A Carter 644S is a carburetor intended for a Packard, with 1.125 (smaller) main venturi diameter, and 1.25 (equal) throttle plate diameter. The 644 does have anti-percolation valves, and both a starter switch and distributor vacuum port.

The diameter of the primary venturi is the same for both carburetors (11/32 inch). The external linkage differs between the two items.

Implication: Based on the larger main venturi size the Hudson carburetor would likely have a higher CFM rating. The distributor vacuum could be connected directly to the intake manifold, while an auxiliary starter switch would suffice. External linkage may (emphasis on vague) be swapped. The entire throttle shaft would need to be swapped, and that’s an overhaul step that I for one avoid. New linkage from the firewall to the carburetor would likely solve the incompatibility.

With the difference in the main venturi size avoid a comparison between the jet/rod sizes. At any given airflow a larger main venturi will result in less airflow through the primary venturi, and thus less suction on the discharge nozzle. To achieve the same fuel flow with less suction the main jet / metering rod flow area must increase. The Hudson 502 main jet is 0.086 inch diameter, with a power step rod diameter of 0.044 inch. The Packard 644 main jet is 0.0846 inch diameter, with a power step rod diameter of 0.045 inch. Resulting in a Hudson fuel flow area 0.00858 in**2, and a Packard fuel flow area 0.00806 in**2 (both on the power step). The difference in fuel flow area is to accommodate (likely at constant air/fuel ratio) the main venturi size change . . . a 502 equipped engine will not likely run any ‘richer’ or ‘leaner’ than the same engine with a 644 installed.

dp

With respect to our difficulty of removing rear axle hubs:

The tire kicking wisdom among the Brand X crowd is to loosen the axle nut to next to nothing and drive the car around the block. The claim is the hub will loosen during the short drive. The Brand X rear axle design is quite similar, that is tapered & keyed, albeit a much smaller in size when compared to Packard size(s).

I bought a ‘rubber’ elbow from Home Depot’s plumbing department. The plan is/was to clamp the elbow onto/around the hub and fill with penetrating oil up to the height of the axle . . . square key ‘up’ just in-case there’s a direct path for the fluid. I haven’t tried it yet, but will in the future. My plan was to try the penetrating oil trick many hours before the barbarism of the hub puller. Once wetted with oil some care would be needed if ‘open flame’ heat is subsequently applied. Perhaps the process should be wet, wait, and then drive around the block (nut reinstalled with minimum torque) before the puller is used.

I suspect we have all been influenced by our professional experiences . . . a fraction of my experience was to avoid anything that could Brinell a bearing. Since most of the force generated by the hammer blow is ultimately reacted at the bearing Brinelling damage a distinct possibility. I suspect the useful life to the bearing would be reduced, but after 75 years no one would ever know, or likely care, if a bearing failure is premature. In work we were especially obsessed with bearing damage during transportation of our product, and would frequently remind each other how the ‘metal never forgets’ . . . even in the back of a truck on the way to a New York airport . . . those roads being noted for ‘pot holes’ the size of national parks.

From a bearing durability stand-point a hub puller that had a provision for a hex socket that would be used with a modern impact wrench, in my mind, would be superior to the ‘hammer only’ puller design, especially if the current bearings are intended to be packed and reused.

dp

Hph, see KPack’s project blog (page 64, post 633) for a file that covers many of the details of servicing the rear axle.

See: Re: KPack [Project Blogs] - Packard Motor Car Information (packardinfo.com)

Additions to the supplement that were identified during Kevin’s project were:

1. A note to lubricate the inner seal with gear oil, especially if a new seal is being installed.
2. A note to lubricate the outer seal with either gear oil or bearing grease, especially if a new seal is being installed.
3. A note on the addition of a series of center punch marks if a loose fit is encountered between the outer bearing race and the axle housing bore.

The pinion seal may be replaced in situ. The key element is returning the pinion bearing preload back to the level is was prior to the seal replacement, while is done by placing the pinion nut in the same position, relative to the pinion gear, at the conclusion of the procedure.

See: Re: 1953 Clipper Ultramatic pinion nut size [Post-War (1946-54)] - Packard Motor Car Information (packardinfo.com)

dp

Corey

I’ve looked at several installed -142 and -229 springs, and the difference between the two is not obvious. I do have a thermally damaged 644S air horn complete with all of the giggly bits associated with the choke, unloader and high idle components. Available for donation, PM if interested.

dp