Packard Don wrote:
One it’s enabled, it engages and disengages automatically, hence the wiring to the transmission and the governor. Also, there is a kick-down switch that knocks if off momentarily when the pedal is pressed to the floor for passing.

Packard Don wrote:
It’s major work to put a modern transmission into a pre-1951 Packard due to the motor mounts. Packard had a single one up front and a pair at the transmission. Those rear transmission supports would not work with a modern transmission so you would have to post 1950 engine, then add the mounts to the frame to accept it.

HH56 wrote:
What would be interesting would be if someone with both solenoids at hand could compare R9 and R11 solenoid plungers to see if any parts would interchange. I doubt they would but if that were a possibility it would open up some repair or conversion options. If an R11 repro that comes in 6 and 12v versions could also be compared to see if the r9 plunger could be swapped it would be even better.

Here are differences between solenoid plunger length as well as the bare R9 plunger assy with the ball on the end (ball is almost hidden at the end of plunger in the photo). If the repro solenoid plunger also had a similar travel and a screw on end cap that could remove so the inner shaft with the different lengths could be swapped it would open up lots of possibilities.

Note: I believe BDeB posted the R11 photo some years ago but am not sure if the photo shows the plunger extended or not. If not then it would extend around 1/2 inch to bring the extended measurement to about 1 1/2" so overall length of the R11 extended would be roughly 3/4" shorter than the R9.

Packard Don wrote:
Without the overdrive connected but with the rear end ratio that the overdrive Packard used, you probably would not want to drive much beyond 50 mph.

Wat_Tyler wrote:
From the For What It's Worth Department:


As an owner of 3 of the 282 engines, one in a driver, I think that the best high performance part that you could install would be a 327. That would be the equivalent of boring it a quarter inch (I believe the stroke is the same). I wouldn't spend a nickel on trying to improve a 282.


But, it is yours, so do what you like and have fun doing it.

Ozstatman wrote:
Quote:

1941Packard wrote:......Was anything ever produced for these engines........

Short answer is yes. Specifically by Edmunds who made a finned Aluminium (Aluminum) head and also a 2 x 2bbl intake manifold. I don't know of any other 282 specific performance parts. Owners might have fabricated custom exhaust headers or 4bbl intake manifolds themselves. I think{?} there could have been other manufacturers but Edmunds is the most well known.

Edmunds "stuff" does come up for sale ocasionally, you just have to keep an eye out for it.

Otherwise one way to get some horsepower gains out of your 282 would be a good old fashioned port and polish job on the intakes and exhausts. Probably 20hp in that? Another way would be to mill the head to increase the compression ratio. BUT you have to be very careful doing this because there's not much clearance between the valve heads and combustion chambers on those engines

HH56 wrote:
No. The R11 plunger length that extends into the overdrive mechanism and locks into the pawl is a different length. R9 extended is about 2 1/4" and R11 extended is about 1". R9 solenoids and relay boxes are unique to that unit. R9 relays are still out there but are getting expensive. .

Resistors do not work well with solenoids and overdrives in general. Trying to run a 6v overdrive at 12v using a dropping resistor is almost a guaranteed way to burn something out. The solenoid pulls a heavy current when moving but considerably less when just holding in an extended position. The value and wattage of a resistor would need to be different in each situation to get a proper voltage drop.

HH56 wrote:
Here is an easier to follow diagram for the overdrive. 41 uses the R9 version which is a bit more complex electrically than the later R11 overdrive. The R11 solenoid can and has been energized manually with a switch because its coils are wired differently but don't know if anyone has tried it with the R9.

In order to bring the R9 solenoid in without the relay box, both terminal 3 and 4 must be jumped together and powered at the same time. 3 is the hold coil but that coil is not strong enough to move the plunger against the spring by itself. 4 is the pull in coil and it does the work of moving the plunger but is a coil that pulls a lot of current and gets hot so gets disconnected when the plunger is fully extended. Without the hold coil also energized at the same time as the pull in coil the plunger will just repeatedly pull in and almost instantly drop out so in effect the solenoid "machine guns".

The power to terminal 3 goes thru a relay coil which increases resistance in the circuit and puts the hold coil the solenoid in a series arrangement. Whether the hold coil is able to be powered constantly at 6v without overheating because the second relay coil is not in the circuit is unknown.

There are some other functions such as the ign cutout and the kickdown that may not be able to be duplicated well without the relay. Until someone tries, no idea now much an issue not having those functions will be.

bkazmer wrote:
The factory drum breaks can lock up the wheels- the braking distance will be set by the tires at almost locked. Disk brakes will improve fade resistance on repeated hard stops but not necessarily stopping distance. My point is what are you expecting disk conversion to do?