Hi Hank,

Looking good! I'd like to do some of that rust converter on my old truck. Is the stuff from Eastwood only available with a kit? I always find the spray cans from Rustoleum and others, and it's just not up to a big job--expensive, too.

I'd appreciate some info but no hurry. I'm sure it doesn't work too well below zero!!

Long time no hear from Al. Do you have a place to work on your Hot Rod Packard in the winter? Or is the project on hiatus? Not trying to push you, just curious about your plans.

Really looks good, Hank. It's very interesting to see the insides of what I was riding on those days. I only got a few weeks to look over of a stripped '55 Custom chassis a out thirty-five years ago. All the detail shots are going to be helpful to a lot of current owners, and fascinating for the rest of the forum members.

Do you have an ETA for the body drop? Meanwhile, keep hammering away. You're good at it.

I'd be sorely tempted to do what Hank is doing and keep the whole "spirit" of the car together, just because that's the way I am with most things. I want to put them back the way they were as much as possible. Like my 1941 Triplex (that's a house not a car--WAY off topic!) It's a monument to plaster, lathe, and stucco and I intend to keep it that way!

I only mentioned the wiper motor because it kind of ticks me off that Packard went back to vacuum, when as Eric says, the Chevy is a bolt-on and a reversible mod.

Brakes get into safety big-time. Like I wouldn't want the original fuse-box nightmare in my house, because others depend on it being a safe place. With a car, the things that make it stop are more important than the things that make it go, IMHO.

BUT, if it was just me who was driving the car or riding in it... I feel different about taking chances. However, there are other people on the road who don't want to be sharing in your risk (of rear-ending them for instance). ALTHOUGH, there is an assumed risk that everybody takes when they go out for a drive. The risk is shared and it's impossible to make it perfectly safe for everyone. "Accidents happen."

If it sounds like I'm conflicted about whether I'd get rid of the original Easamatic setup, it's because I am. No brakes are 100% fail-safe, but the setup that Packard used (and other mfrs, too, Ford is one I have heard used this system) is about 100 times more likely to fail than almost any dual master cylinder setup.

...and I was in a '55 400 when the brakes failed... luckily on a straight stretch of lonely two-lane blacktop. But I still remember my dad, yanking on the e-brake T-handle and cursing. Get this, though, he was a professional mechanic for over 35 years, and never was completely sold on a dual master cylinder system.

Here's why: If the Brake Warning light does not come on (or gives so many false readings you stop paying attention to it) you can be driving around with HALF a braking system in operation, while the other half has you back to one master cylinder.

Makes ya think, doesn't it? But he always was a contrary fellow.

Thanks for mentioning the old tools, Hank. I know just how you feel, having "inherited" a few of my father's, including an ancient half-inch drill. I feel closest to my memories of him when I use his tools... and humbled by how much less skill and speed I have than he did.

Sorry for going on and on. I'll get out of here and let the show go on, now. Do whatever you think is best. You sound conscientious enough to give it careful thought.

Henry,

I am sure glad that Packard is in your expert hands. Your workmanship really shines, and you are moving fast. I bet you got all "A"s in shop class!

The pictures are great, although I can't pick out all the details. I only saw one bare Packard chassis, that was a '55 Custom 4-door that was being parted out.

Regarding the manual, things are always different when you look at the real thing. So much frustration can be alleviated by just asking the knowledgeable people on this forum and sharing your experiences. I tend to prefer the Parts manuals with their expanded drawings. A good drawing is worth a thousand words.

Regarding the wiper motor. That is one thing I wouldn't blame anyone if they converted from vacuum to electric. I never understood why Packard went back to the vacuum system after using electric. Heck, they touted all kinds of electrical gadgets on their cars, fitting for a company that began as a manufacturer of electrical parts.

I think there's a Chevy wiper motor that pops right in. I know Craig can tell you all about that. Then you can go to a non-bastardized oil pump as well. Think of all the engineering wasted on that piggy-back vacuum pump, for vacuum wipers that never should have been on the car in the first place! Dumbest thing (and most unsafe) on the '55 and '56 models, except for the Easacrashic brakes. You can find out more from craig about going to a dual master cylinder.... and avoid feeling (and being) unsafe at any speed.

Cheers! That's all the baloney I have for now. Keep the pics and posts coming!

Interesting tidbit on the old complaint about the "Reinhart High-Pockets" design which influenced Packard styling from '51 to '56. He didn't like it. He wanted to lower the beltline another inch and a half back with the original design changes in '51, saying that it was "bottom-heavy." (He's quoted in Kimes, page 546) "I wasn't particularly happy with it, but then I hated every design I ever made anyway. You never get what you really want..."

Spoken like a true engineer: compromise. The story was that sheet metal tooling wasn't a problem but the cost of glass was, hence the higher beltline with a proportionately lower "greenhouse."

I think the effect is quite striking--more so on the '51-'54 because of a 'chopped' look that results. Also, when they could refrain from chrome spears to give the appearance of "sleekness" the Reinhart cars had that wonderful "slab-sided" look like the Caribbean. Hollywood liked it, and even gave 'em an award for the "Most Beautiful Car In the World" in 1951 from the Society of Motion Picture Art Directors. So, why weren't they prominent in more movies? Often, especially in older pictures, you can tell what company supplied the cars because there were several of the latest models in scene after scene. I wonder if Packard didn't want to play ball with that for some reason.

Bitchin'! Can I say that here? I believe the rear trans setup was strictly for f/r weight distribution.

No wonder you're having trouble getting to the Panther project! Taking off after a Poncho with a tranny in the caboose! ( Just needlin' you. I respect your work ethic.)



I know, I know, I'll shut up now!

Back to AL and his carbs.

Quote:

Agreed on the looks. Not much wonder these Monte Carlos disappeared pretty quickly.

Also agreed this is a really good thread.

Can't tell about closure yet, though.

I think Kimes uses the term "spares" because they are referring to TWO 1952 Mayfair hardtops that were to be converted by Henney:

"...with 1953 style bumpers, headlight rims, fender and body moldings, deck lid ornaments and grilles. The Monte Carlos had wire wheels, exterior spares..." (p. 554, Packard, a History of the Motorcar and the Company, General Edition, Beverly Rae Kimes, Ed., Automobile Quarterly pub. 1978)


Here's a little more info on the Kelsey-Hayes wheels from Kimes:

"Some production of Pan Americans was definitely planned--at least by Henney. On March 13th (1952) Preston Boyd wrote that he had mentioned to Packard 'the necessity of having some sort of a tentative price . . . Of course, one of the chief problems is to know how many [Packard] wants to run or commit itself for, which will be a determining factor . . . if it is to be offered with wire wheels it will mean complete tooling for production of these, which will be rather costly.' (The wheels eventually selected were bought from Kelsey-Hayes, cutting costs considerably.)" [Ibid.] Emphasis added.

So, did the few Pan Americans get out on the roads with K-H wire wheels? Well, there's a picture of one, prominently showing a front wheel, on page 555 of Kimes. I'm no expert, but I know people here that are and have the Kimes book. I'll leave it up to you to identify the wheel. It's beyond me.

One of the BEST bits of closure I can think of is the CARIBBEAN, which was, after all this building and testing (exciting as it is) of project cars, the ultimate production car that resulted and tore up the roads for a few glorious years.

Quote:

Or, as I think i said earlier, "a bitch." Having only personal experience with a marine setup, albeit on an automotive V8 using Carter 1bbl side-draft units, I can't give a lot of technical detail.

However, I recall, (how I wish i still had the Cars and Parts article)-- it dealt partly with the difficulty of keeping the dual quads properly set up and synchronized on the the milestone Rivieras when they came out with the 64-'65 425 ci "GS" Rivs. It said that a few went on to twist off cranksshafts. Reason being (they suggested) was some very ill-balanced carbs.

Evidently, it takes some expertise to get these right.

Once again, tell me I'm a dreamer if I'm dreamin', but is not there some danger of serious consequences from poorly synchronized multiple carbs?

Maybe you're right, Craig, unless you want the look to be "just so," you can get the job done with one nice big 4-barrel.

Thanks for the pix on your project. Will you keep us posted here or on the Panther site? BTW, was that '63 Tempest one of those that originally featured the rear transaxle? Thank you for rescuing it, if so.

'Sokay folks. All for the cause of the latter day Packards. Thanks for the "aye" votes. Now, I suppose we'll have to wait for the "real" answer from above. Maybe one of those gentlemen who worked on the line, mentioned in the great Packard Proving Grounds thread. Wish some of them would join in here. Of course, part of the fun is puzzlin' it out.