Quote:

Yes, of course, Gable. Typing fast... and doing so late at night. But the rest of what I said IS accurate...

Quote:

There were still other supercharged Packards that were postwar straight 8s. According to Nat Dawes' book "The Packard 1942-1962" on Page 105 he shows a good photo of what is claimed to be a 1953 supercharged Packard convertible. The caption reads that four 1953 convertibles were done by McCullagh Division of Paxton to demonstrate how supercharged straight 8 Packards could perform. Perhaps this is where the idea of supercharging the first two Packard Panthers came from.

Quote:

I took a look at the site linked. They state that the pic is Clark Gable looking over the supercharger in HIS T-Bird... but Gable's car was actually sitting a few feet away when this photo was taken and his car was a dark color, not the light one shown. In my photo set he parks his dark car (I think red) next to this light car and sits there with a starlet while he smokes a cigarette. BTW, Gabe loved Packards too!

Hello...

RE: the black Clipper... The Clipper I mentioned was a 1956 hardtop from Oregon. I believe it was in Hot Rod magazine in 1957 or so. As I recall it merely had the Caribbean intake with dual quads installed along with a bunch of things done to the engine. It had a stick & over trans and ran respectable times for its day. I kept the original magazine for many years, but it is in storage now and not easily accessible. Take a look around on the internet.

RE: the photo showing Clark Gable and the supercharger in a T-Bird... Yes, I am certain the the photos I have in my collection and others I saw many years ago were all from the same series. The photo you show here is different from the ones I have, but I am certain it was taken at the same time and place-in front of the Paxton building. My photos even have the same 1955 Oldsmobile sitting behind a chain link fence.

There were also once a couple of hopped-up race prepped V-8 Packards out in the Mohave Desert at a place called "The Packard Doctor." This was back in the 1970s. One of these cars was a 1956 Patrician that had the entire front end radically modified and lightened... and a very hot engine installed. There are photos of this car I took back then now posted on the PAC web site. Furthermore, there was another V-8 there that had a supercharger. No idea what ever happened to these cars.

I have seen two different configurations of supercharging on Packard V-8s over my lifetime. One I already have mentioned here is the Paxton/McCullagh version. The other was a impeller type, GM 6-71 type that sat on top of the engine and fed by what appeared to be four 2BBL carburetors with little individual chrome air cleaners this crazy car was once on display at a hot rod show back in the 1960s in Detroit. No idea if it even ran, but it got a lot of attention!

Yes. Paxton Products McCullagh Superchargers definitely had an application for Packard V8s as well as other American cars in the mid-1950s. Obviously this was not PMCC factory stuff, but it indeed was available and some were sold.

Someone I met who worked there back then had glossy photos of several of these applications. In his collection he also had pics of Clark Gable sitting in his own special 1955 supercharged Thunderbird (it had the same type supercharger and said "Supercharged" in chrome script on the very front of the car above the grille). I still have those photos today, but while I was unable to obtain the pics of applications on Packard V8s, they obviously had them. And yes, as I once tried to say in one of these internet forums years back when I was laughed at, they indeed had a normally aspirated and supercharged Caribbean dual carb marine engine... as some photos on the net are finally verifying after all these years.

And the black V8 Clipper that was in several magazines and around the performance circles certainly was a known hopped-up V8 back in the 1950s. And as I have said many times, there were other hot-rodded Packard V8s around back in those times-even if people today don't believe it. And a lot of them were running with-dare I say it?-Packard Ultramatic transmissions! OMG!

This will be my last comment on this matter...

I once had a friend who is now long gone, but he had fleets of V8 Packards. Lots of them. I had a problem with starting my Caribbean after it sat for a few days. I also had problems with my Patrician likewise after a few days. So I asked him if he ever had a similar issue. Indeed he did.

The Rochester carbs on both cars were already rebuilt. I yanked the fuel pumps and took them to a Packard-friendly fuel pump rebuilder in those days in downtown Los Angeles. The fellow who ran the place advised me that there was nothing at all wrong with my fuel pumps but rebuilt them for me anyway.

I installed the fuel pumps back on both cars and... a few days later... SAME problem.

My friend chuckled and asked me if I had checked the flex hose fitting by the fuel pump. It looked fine to me, but no indeed I had not. THEN he instructed me to remove the guts of the sediment bowl leading to the carbs and take a look. Sure enough, at times it did not seem to be filling solid and after a few days the start issue returned. Each car would still start with a prime.

I removed the flex hoses and even though they seemed to look fine, upon bending them, each had dozens of tiny and not-so-tiny hairline cracks. I replaced the hoses and the problem...went away. Just as he said it would.

I had a similar issue occur on my 1966 Eldorado. Cured it the same way.

This simple cure certainly will not always and everywhere be a solution on a one-to-one basis. However, my simple point is if a patient comes into a doctor with chest pains this does not mean open-heart surgery is mandated. Try the easy possibilities first... then get into more difficult and expensive remedies afterward.

RE: UV damage to rubber... this is wholly possible with tires. UV is an acronym for Ultra-Violet light... which is transmitted via direct sunlight. Kinda hard to do under the hood of a car! However smog-rot (or ozone damage) to rubber-especially in large urban areas with smog is always a good possibility. The reason RV owners put covers on their tires when these vehicles are not being used is to prevent UV damage... but kinda hard to get UV damage in fuel lines under the hood and under the car.

RE: Tire rubber UV damage compared to fuel line rubber rot... Tires don't have gasoline running through them. AND tires (at least for this example) are pushing outward with pressure... while the rubber flex line on the fuel pump is sucking IN... and that means sucking whatever happens to be in the ambient air or whatever environment it can reach. And tires-despite hairline cracks from UV damage-are a heck of a lot thicker and tougher than a small fuel flex coupling.

RE: Moisture in fuel tanks and lines...
? With the large number of these tanks being replaced today and the fact that ethanol is in much of the fuel supply in the USA and certainly overseas (and believe me-or not-where there is one, there is usually the other)...this should not be an issue of debate. Especially with such empirical evidence
? Gasoline and fuels float on TOP of moisture (water)-not the other way around. Which is why there are oil slicks sometimes at sea. And why that cute little elbow-bend metal gasoline pick-up tube in the bottom of the Packard V8 gas tank gets sooooo rusty, some even get plugged solid. What's causing the tube and tank to rust? It certainly isn't mere petroleum.

RE: Check valves in fuel lines... A check valve in a fuel line, or even several of them again is not a "if this, then that" cure. It all depends on where the check valve has been placed. IF it is after the possible point of a flex-line rot, then all the check valves in the world can't remedy the problem any more than closing the barn door after the horse has run away. A leaking carb fuel bowl should give off several visible cues and other clues. However, if a check valve is in the wrong spot to remedy the issue I mention earlier, it will do little or nothing. Just like placing a diode in an electrical circuit at a point after that circuit can go to ground.

I am not interested in an endless debate, which is the staple of most online forums. I merely relate what I know and offer that information in the spirit of suggesting a quick, low-cost and easy cure. End of story.

Moisture (or moist air-and to a fuel system, these are pretty much the same thing) entering the fuel system via perforations in a flex hose can and has traveled in both directions. This was indeed proved on the factory level in an OEM warranty test using dyes... which ended up traveling rearward to the tank and upward to the carburetor. I know because I oversaw the lab tests at the OEM and it certainly very well did happen.

While I never did lab tests on a Packard we did prove this same possibility many years ago with a troublesome hard-starting 1956 Patrician with factory air... and with a 1966 Cadillac. Both issues occurred during winter in Los Angeles. Both vehicles turned out to also have perforated diaphragms in the fuel pump (this indeed was also confirmed by a company in LA that rebuilt the fuel pumps). Once the moisture got into the system, it did not care which direction it went with the engine off, although obviously with a good fuel pump everything would want to move in the direction of the engine.

In these cases, moisture is usually cumulative-not a one-shot deal. And yes, it could happen on any car with a perforated flex line in the fuel system and a weak or perforated diaphragm in the fuel pump.

And while we can always talk on a basis of "if this, then that" and "if one, then 100% must also be true." But like with smoking cigarettes and getting cancer, this is not an issue that always occurs on a one-to-one basis. There are probably lots of Packards (and other cars) out there still operating without their owners realizing that occasional or habitual hard start is due to a perforated flex line at the fuel pump. Just know I have indeed seen this issue in Packard V8s... and learned it many years ago from a friend who had fleets of these cars over many years, AND...I proved this again at a Packard meet just a few years ago when a fellow's Packard V8 would not start for lack of gas. Told the owner to check the line when his car started after a priming (even when he insisted the flex hose was good). Wanna guess what he came running up to show me? All the little cracks in the hose when it was bent in the light. Wow. Shocking!

And yes, a weak accelerator pump in a carburetor can indeed cause hard starting (so can other things too). It also can-and has existed instead of OR along with a perforated flex line off of the fuel pump or in the fuel line. Seen a jillion of these in Southern California over the years. The dry-rot condition is also known as "smog rot" and have seen it even on beautiful-looking flex hoses. Even N.O.S. ones.

Either way, this is not the issue here. The point originally made was if I am having a hard starting V8 Packard that appears to be having leak-down issues... AND that engine indeed starts and runs after being primed with fuel, do I want to start in rebuilding carburetors and doing other complicated, expensive remedies and mojoe? OR do I simply want to check that flex hose for rot and replace it first? I put my vote for the quick, easy, reasonably inexpensive first. THEN go to the other remedies. As with many systems, it is often cheaper and easier to look for and remedy the root cause rather than repairing myriad symptoms.

The absolute, most common all-time cause for this condition on Packard V8s is due to rot or hairline cracks that always, always eventually develop in the flex hose attached to the fuel pump. People will swear the line looks fine. They'll swear it's not leaking (and visually, it usually does not appear to be...after all the leaking is usually inward bound-not outward). But remove it, hold it up to the light and bend it. Usually dozens of tiny hairline cracks will reveal themselves.

In the end, the fuel pump works itself to death-not sucking gasoline from the tank... but sucking mere air from below the car. It is most easily noted when the carb won't fill and the engine has trouble starting. Today, this malady is most often blamed on all manner of other things, but the cause is often just this simple.

I know someone who went through one new fuel pump after another... and had all kinds of deep mechanical work done and strange diagnoses. Had to be the tank... had to be the carb... had the be the fuel pump... had to be the line from the tank.... when all the time it was a dry-rotted flex hose. Tried to tell him, but into the thousands of dollars later, the cause was the flex hose, like I said. Fixed it in 20 minutes.

Incidentally, this extra air in the line at this point also allows in extra moisture....which can have negative effects in both directions: the carb... and the tank. Moisture in the tank (a problem more common than ever today with the weird fuel blends) only gets worse with air being sucked and moisture joining moisture. The design of the fuel pickup tube in the tank with the sharp arc in the line is a typical spot for water, clogging and rust to accumulate. Many whole tanks are replaced solely for this reason.

Anyway, before launching into all other more complicated directions, your first remedy/countermeasure ought to be to replace the flex hose at the fuel pump. THEN see how things work and branch outward from there for further remedies. And even IF the fuel pump turns out to be defective, the cause may still have been the little flex hose allowing the pump to run dry and doing itself in.

Quote:

Yes, if you really know your 1955 and 1956 Caribbeans the gas tank filler door trim differs, thus the cast antenna riser for the left-hand side is slightly different (there is a set of 1956 Caribbean antenna riser trim pieces on eBay now).

As for single-tone 1955 Caribbeans, this one is genuine...specially ordered. And originally had black and red interior-special ordered. But someone has quite obviously changed the transmission and carbs. These are all things that can be fixed and returned to original. Depends on just how much you love the car and how fastidious you are in tracking down parts.

This car IS a known car. Certainly no mystery. And there were other odd-color Caribbeans for 1955 done by the factory (in addition to ones running around today with home-grown colors inflicted on them). Jay Leno has an unusual 2-tone 1955 that was a known SoCal car... a kind of beige with an orange stripe and orange with black interior when I last saw it decades before he bought it. Hardly 1955 standard colors, but ordered that way new if I recall. There was also another factory all-black 1955 Caribbean in Southern California for many years. Solid black with a solid black interior, made that way by the factory. A good friend owned it for many years, but no idea where it is today. And there was also a factory all-black 1956 Caribbean convertible with a single pink strip on the interior.

Unfortunately the photo in the eBay add showing the "black with (gag) pumpkin" interior" 1956 is a car that is certainly in no way original. Heavens. I used to drive this very car in the 1970s when it was original and unmolested. Yes, it had factory air, but none of that interior or top it has now! And certainly not the color. You can see it as it originally looked (prior to the molestation) in factory Dover White, Scottish Heather and Maltese Gray in an old issue of Car Collector/Car Classics magazine in an article where I photographed it. It had a white grained top with pink inner lining.

RE: the Marano Panthers... these two cars are simply and correctly known as "Panther" but not "Panther-Daytona." This is a fallacy that has persisted ever since one of them hit the big "classic car auction" circuit years ago and the yarns about Panthers have since grown wilder and wilder and wilder. The original Panther history published in The Packard Cormorant magazine is accurate... even after all these years.

The Marano cars were privately-owned Panthers in the 1950s. The Daytona nomenclature was only added to the two factory Panthers that were never modified into having 1955 cathedral tail lights. Panther-Daytonas had superchargers...Panthers did not. Panther-Daytonas had '54 Clipper tail lights... Panthers (in their final form) did not and instead had 1955 cathedral type senior tail lights. And there were only four Panthers (including ALL flavors-Daytona or not) ever made despite silly arguments that persist about this. I knew these cars from when they were first built and had friends who actually built them.

RE: the 1952-53 Monte Carlos... there were two of these DeVille-style open top cars built...both with different colors and trim. I suspect a third may have been replicated somehow in later years.

RE: the 22nd series Monte Carlo... there were at least two different versions done.

These are facts... but they'll just likely set off more endless stories and arguments.