Good day everyone,

I have previously posted questions with regard to the project described below, but honestly did not get seriously committed to getting to the bottom of issues on this project until 2020. In what follows, I’ve tried to provide a very brief history and a Reader’s Digest abridged version of events as background of where I started and where I am as of yesterday. I’m frustrated and dejected with everything that has happened. I’m looking for any insight that the community might be able to provide as to where to go from here. Kind of at wits end! Thanks for anything you are willing to offer.

Project Vehicle: 1954 Convertible Coupe
• Engine: 359 L8 S/N M603895 with aluminum head
• Purchased: 2003 Reno, NV for $3,000.00
• Condition: Complete car; visual appearance good given age and storage conditions; engine was not running and no history/recollection by owner of last time it did; odometer reading ~51,000 miles

Donor Vehicle: 1954 Patrician
• Engine: 359 L8 S/N M603686 with cast iron head
• Purchased: 2004 Anaheim, CA for $1,000.00
• Condition: Complete car; visual appearance fair; engine had been recently overhauled with less than 500 miles on overhaul per owner’s recollection, but no records found for overhaul or where performed.
• Drivable, but not reliable. Non-starter after hot due to what was, years later, determined to be heat-soak effects on the starter weakening ability of Delco starter to turn over the engine. Engine eventually pulled for Project car. Patrician sold to an interested party in Kentucky sans engine.


Original plan in 2003: Pull engine from donor vehicle and install in project vehicle. Engines were swapped in 2004, however, due to issues with non-start condition when hot due to effects of heat-soak on starter + other life obstacles, I lost interest in the project, so it sat.

In early 2020, after retiring, I was determined that I was either going to find someone that would be willing to work on the engine or sell the car. A Hudson owner at a local car show referred me to a shop that he felt has a good reputation for working on 50's era cars. The opened a dialogue with the owner and he agreed to go through the engine and provide his diagnosis of what he thought the problems were. Bottom line, after getting the engine started and checking compression, etc., his opinion was that there were more serious issues with the engine than heat-soak and he had no interest in digging to the bowels of the engine as he no longer had any interest in overhauling engines, especially those of orphan cars. So, back into the garage it went.

In early 2021, via some networking through a mutual acquaintance, I found a mechanic whose experience was primarily in 21st century modern cars, but had some limited experience on 1950's in-line 6’s and V8's, but no experience with straight 8's. He was extremely interested in learning and was willing to do all work free-of-charge provided I did all the leg work in getting parts. He knew he had the automotive contacts to do whatever machine work that might be required. So in February 2021, he proceeded with pulling the engine and digging into it.

The first obvious issue found with the tear-down was a bent valve. There were also a couple of random nuts found in the block, none of which were from anything in crank case. There were 3 cylinders that had been previously sleeved. He sent the block to be cleaned and magna-fluxed at a local shop that has been in the business of rebuilding engines since 1977 and has a good reputation with the local hot rod community. Magna-flux identified a few cracks and this shop’s opinion was the block was not worth trying to rework. They felt that installing new/additional sleeves might cause the block to literally crack in half. So with that diagnosis, we turned our attention to the project car’s engine.

The block original to the convertible/project car was disassembled. The block had 3 cylinders with sleeves. After further analysis, one additional sleeve was needed, so proceeded with installation of the needed sleeve. After the sleeving was completed, a pressure test was performed on the block with no leaks evident. Therefore, he believed the block to be viable to proceed. It was decided that the pistons were re-useable with new rings (.010); crank was ground/polished (.010); new rod bearings and main bearings installed; aluminum head was cleaned and inspected and found to need several threaded inserts for spark plugs; complete valve job performed; new timing gears/chain installed; oil/fuel/water pumps rebuilt; replaced Delco starter with Auto-lite. Re-assembly and installation in the car was completed in June 2022.

So, the day finally arrived on a warm, late June day, to see if all the work that had been performed over 17 months was going to pay off!! The carb was primed and, after several attempts, the engine started. Everything seemed to be going fine until things reached (or exceeded) temp and coolant started leaking via numerous locations, but mostly through several of the head studs. Needless to say, there were some very dejected faces standing around the car that afternoon.

The engine was pulled and disassembled and everything examined. The post-mortem performed revealed the following issues:
a. Pressure test revealed some minor leaks at 2 of the old cylinder sleeves.
b. Old head studs were used and not installed with any thread sealant.

Fast forward to March 2023. The engine reassembly has finally been completed using new head studs (purchased from Kanter’s) installed with thread sealant. All new head stud nuts installed and torqued as indicated in the service manual. (The engine sat for a couple of days before attempting start-up, so stud nuts were re-torqued before start-up. Nothing had changed.) New head gasket installed as well.

(I forgot to mention that after the failure of last summer, we fabricated a run-in stand so we could start the engine without it being installed in the car.)

With everything ready to go, we cranked the engine and after getting some short start/stalls, fuel started flowing through the fuel pump/carb and she took off. Timing and carb needed a bit of adjusting and the windshield wiper vacuum port needed to be plugged, but then she smoothed out and sounded pretty sweet. We let her run for a few minutes then shut everything down and re-torqued head stud nuts. A couple of the nuts moved ever so slightly. We fired her up again. Running at low idle, things seemed to be going well and we were hopeful all was good, but, alas, they were not. Temp was continually rising and a digital temp gauge indicated a temp over 210F. Temp was hotter at the rear of the block versus front, but was still over 180F in the front. We then noticed steam/bubbling coming from 3 or 4 of the head studs. My recollection is that all leaking studs were on the non-manifold side. As we did not want to continue given the temperature situation, we shut everything down and stopped for the day.

Other items of note related to this week’s events are:
a. There was no leakage around the entire perimeter of the head gasket at the head/block interface.
b. There was no white smoke coming out of the exhaust.
c. Although thermostat was relatively new, it was removed to ensure unobstructed flow of coolant.

I guess I’m looking/hoping for anyone’s thoughts/opinions/theories on the over-temp condition and why it appears head studs are leaking even though threads were sealed. Any suggestions would be welcomed as, at this point, things are at a standstill with no clear path forward!

Thanks much!!!

Seems there is at least a consensus on how to calculate - use pressure at altitude expressed in pounds per square inch multiplied by the compression rating. Because I’m at just a skosh above sea level and the compression ratio per spec for the 359 used in the 5431’s is 8.7:1, I should expect to see ABOUT 127 psi if all the planets are in alignment! LOL

I think we’ll move forward by putting a bit of oil in the cylinders (maybe one to start) to see if there is any difference. Then, go from there.

Thanks again!

Thanks for the quick reply!

You and I are thinking the same, so I feel better that I’m not out in left field somewhere!

When compression was checked, yes, all plugs were out. We considered putting some oil in each cylinder, but decided against that at this time, so the only lubrication the rings have is residual from when the pistons were installed.

Good morning,

Are there any factory spec callouts for what the cylinder compression should be on the 359 CID engine? I’ve viewed various threads regarding this in the forum, but I don’t seem to find anything that nails down what it should be.

Here is my situation:
1. All the work on the block was completed, e.g., cleaned, checked for cracks, sleeves in 3 cylinders, valve job, etc.
2. Pistons deemed to be good, so new rings installed, new bearings installed, etc.
3. Aluminum head cleaned/inspected. It was not milled.

With all the above completed, the engine is ‘buttoned up’, but not installed back into the car. Installed an Autolite starter and the engine cranked Cylinder compression measured and is consistent in each cylinder at about 75 psi. I think we were expecting it to be higher, but pleased it was consistent.

I’ve seen threads that indicate compression in running engines to be in the 130’s and 140’s and one that indicated even lower compression in the 90’s, but these were not for the 359 engine. One responder even stated that as long as the engine is running good, no smoke, etc., then the lower compression should be “fine for now”.

Whereas I’m encouraged that the consistent compression from cylinder to cylinder is a good indicator, is it enough? My thinking is that it will increase with lubrication once it’s running and rings settle in, etc.

So . . . .

1. Is there a factory callout for cylinder compression?

2. If not, it there a consensus among ‘the Packard community’ what a reasonable number would be for an engine at the stage mine is?

Thanks again for any input/guidance!

Good afternoon!

If what is meant by “proper starter” is the Delco-Remy starter listed in the 54th Series specs, etc., I completely understand. However, this car has always suffered with not wanting to start when hot and the problem isn’t vapor lock. It has always seemed like the Delco starter (rebuilt) on the car doesn’t have the strength/torque to crank the engine when hot. I’ve read several threads in this website and other blogs for other car brands where heat soak is a problem for starters. It seems other Packard owners with the same issue have found that the Autolite starter gives a better result in helping alleviate this issue. I’m trying to keep the car as original as possible, but I’m weary of not driving it because I don’t want to be sitting someplace for a couple of hours while everything cools off so it will start OR calling AAA to come spin it with a 12v jump to get me moving again. If the Autolite will give me a better result, then I’m all for it!

Good morning and thanks for the reply!

I reached out to Merritt and they say they have a rebuilt Autolite MCL-6003 w/ solenoid. So, I found a pic of that P/N here in the packardinfo site. The thread said it was off a 53 Clipper w/ 288 engine. It does not look the same as the Delco in that it does not appear to have the Bendix gear mechanism to engage the starter with the flywheel. Will this starter work on my convertible 359 engine with key start?

Thanks!!

Good day! I’ve been searching the site for a thread that indicates the use of an Autolite starter in direct replacement of the Delco starter on a ‘54 Senior such as the convertible. This entry from 2019 was the closest to indicating that an Autolite could be used in place of the Delco, but the threaded seemed to end without confirmation of a P/N. I see in the Service Manual the callout in the 54th Series for and Autolite MCL6129, but is only listed in the column for 5400 not 5431. Can anyone clarify what Autolite starter P/N can be used on a ‘54 Convertible. Thank you!

I know this is a very, very long shot, but does anyone recognize the car in this picture? Last known location was in Grandview, MO at Walter’s Auto-body Repair, but it’s been almost 50 years ago.

Mark
540cmac

Attach file:

---

  1CFF4FB0-3D86-4FE8-A771-73C82705AD3E.jpeg (204.97 KB)

Good day!

Well, seems as though I have a faulty turn signal switch assembly - at least in the fact that it will not activate the right rear turn signal. I found a spare switch assembly in my box of spare parts which I plugged into the under-dash receptacle and tried the signals. To my surprise, the right rear signal functioned, but the left did not. Just the opposite of what I was anticipating. At that point, I knew I had good connections to the right rear signal. So I disconnected the switch assembly, cleaned all the contacts and re-installed to the receptacle. Eureka!! All signals are now working!! (BTW, brake lights were working with the old assembly!). So now, I just have to locate my steering wheel puller and switch out the old for the new-old switch assembly!

Thank you all again for your support and guidance! It is greatly appreciated! On to the next item on the list!

Cheers!

Hey Howard and Ross,

Again, thanks for the quick replies!

The out-board tail lights on right/left side of the car are the turn signal/brake lights. Both sockets have 1154 bulbs. The in-board lights on both sides are just running lights, but they have 1129 bulbs in them. Not sure why.

There is a difference between the 2 turn signal/brake light sockets. The properly functioning side has the 2 contacts passing through a round piece of unclad G10. I assume there is a single spring under that piece of G10. The non-functioning side has a different internal set-up. There are 2 springs (one for each contact). There is no G10 stiffener on top of those springs. The wire crimped into the contact passes through the spring and the contact rests on top of said spring. I would say that could contribute to the problem except for the fact that light bulb does illuminate,

Tomorrow I will double check the brake lights.

Now, for the switch mechanism, I’ve considered that could be a possible source. Although I have cycled it numerous times thinking there could be some corrosion/dirt, etc., nothing changes. I may remove it tomorrow, as well, so I can get a look at its’ condition.

I’m sure more to follow!