Randy, my 56 Caribbean, a "late" (post #250) car, has the brace on both sides and I do believe the parts book calls for 2 per car so I think that clears that up. As to the really good question of whether its use was related to the heavier hoods used on Caribbeans, it would be enlightening to see if the 51-54 standard convertibles, and the 53-54 Caribbeans, had the same bracing. I think we'd all enjoy some feedback on this.

As to the fiberglass hood that was observed, the only postwar Packard I'm aware of that used a fiberglass hood was the '54 Panther Daytona and with only 4 made, I doubt there were many spares produced.

I'm quite certain the 53/54 Caribbean hoods were modified standard steel hoods, with the air scoop section added and leaded; thus the need for the hood support rods. 1955 hoods may indeed also contain considerable lead as they too have the support rods which 1956 Caribbean hoods don't; 56 hoods are VERY much lighter than 55s. Someone who has stripped a 55 hood in the course of repainting could confirm this.

Adding a frame-to-engine ground somewhere unobtrusive might be a good idea but really isn't generally needed because of two reasons: (1) there are MANY points of metal-to-metal attachment of car bodies to frames (for example, all the body mounting bolts), and (2) very few cars (our TL equipped V8 Packards the exception) have any electrical components that are frame-mounted. One the other hand the engine-to-body ground strap is important because once batteries moved out from under the front seat, they were generally grounded to the engine block and the driveline, being mounted in rubber mounts and further isolated by lubricants and moving connections, can easily lack a good ground. Another place to consider adding a ground is the gas tank; in restoration often the frame is heavily painted as is the tank, which itself is often isolated with webbing in the straps or retainers. If the fuel line (which is the tank ground) is interrupted for an in-line electric pump installed with rubber tubing connections, then this ground is lost. In such cases I usually install a ground from one of the fuel sender capscrews to a convenient frame rail.

Another "for what its worth" comment. Last weekend I both helped paint (with Kanter's Packard gray) a 1950 engine, and my own from porch deck and steps (with Benjamin Moore alkyd Deck Gray). The engine gray might have been a hint lighter, but not much. It appears very close to the "Crane Gray" that Packard used for their factory-reconditioned engine short blocks. I've not seen an original 48-54 engine with what I'd call "dark" gray.

Stokes Marine (and no doubt others) bought surplus Packard V8 engines (J.C. Whitney had them available new in crates for years) and marinized them themselves, thus they were unlike the IM-356 and IM-245 Packard marine engines which were built for marine use by Packard. A Stokes version Packard V8 marine engine is on display, at the Packard Proving Grounds I believe, along with several true Packard marine engines based on the 245 and 356 engines. In addition to being available with a variety of gear reductions via hydraulic gear boxes, the Packard IM-245 and IM-356 engines were also available in counter-rotating pairs which makes for some interesting internal changes, and also available in several different voltages. They also used updraft carburetion. Bob Neil's two books have a very considerable amount of information on the various Packard-built marine and aircraft engines.

When I read your original post about Hirsch not covering charges to correct his order, I did get in touch with him about it, so I'm glad your back in contact. I've known Bill for more than 30 years, he's a classy guy and would never expect a customer to pay for his own mistake.

The engine pulls a rock-steady 19 inches of manifold vacuum when idling, and other than overheating at idle even on cool days runs extremely well. I'm beginning to discount the tail pipe restriction for another reason - logic would seem to say that at idle with so little exhaust product to move, it couldn't be the problem; a restricted exhaust might be expected to manifest itself more at higher speeds though I do recognize that the heat exchange from the better air speed over the radiator would counteract that. As to the heat riser, its broken but I'm told it's wide open (counterweight down). This one really has me baffled, block exceptionally clean inside, water distribution tube perfect, timing OK, new 4-row radiator and water pump. I hate to use an external electric fan, that's generally not a good idea, it just masks the problem, kind of like taking a pain killer after you sprain you back so you can back out and split some firewood. Open to any ideas, no matter how far-fetched.

HH56: Thanks for checking on this for me, could you please just clarify that the 2-1/4 is the tail pipe diameter for a 288 engine, and not the exhaust pipe diameter?

I'd like very much to know what the correct tail pipe diameter is for a 1950 (23rd series) Eight (2301, 288 ci engine). I'm pursuing a chronic overheating problem with this car and have been through EVERYTHING I can think of and am running out of ideas. Current tail pipe measures 1-3/4 diameter OD which is smaller than the 288 engine had a few years later.

Just confirming Randy's friend's observation about the inner control arm bushings; at about 90,000 miles on my 56 Caribbean, the upper inner bushings were badly in need of replacement, but the lowers which I believe to still be the originals did not require replacement.