G'day Mates,

As interest the distributor curve thread seems to be fading and because I'm now enquiring about mileage achieved by others, I thought I'd better start another thread.

But first, time for another update about the distributor saga and I'll preface it by saying we've gone back to the drawing board for some more mod's.

Briefly, after doing a couple of mileage checks, while the old girl pulled smoothly and strongly, she's also using too much juice. First test showed AUS 14.2mpg (US 11.8mpg). After talking to my expert, he suggested testing the vac advance - the reco'd one fitted to the distributor with the Pertronix kit tested out at the factory spec of 16 degrees. The one fitted to the spare distributor tested out at 20 degrees even though both are numbered 1019111 (old age?). Anyway, he suggested swapping them and rechecking mileage, and this improved to AUS 15.5mpg (US 12.9mpg) - still not good enough given that I regularly achieved AUS 19 - 20mpg (US 16 - 17mpg) in the past before the distributor weights started sticking. My driving style is pretty relaxed, with a light right foot and she seems to do best on the highway around 55 - 60mph.

I'd be interested in finding out how this compares with other peoples experiences.

Given these results it was back to the shop with the distributor. I was informed that it had been calibrated somewhere between the factory specs and those detailed in Service Bulletin 56T-14. We are now going to completely ignore that Bulletin and structure a calibration more suited to the car, modern fuel and my preferred driving style. Part of this will be increasing the vac advance closer to 20 degrees as the car was coping fine with that amount with no pinging during the last test. The plan is to get economy at least back to where it was, without any loss of drivability. I'll keep y'all posted on how it works out.
Cheers, John

G'day Mates,

Time for another update and I'll preface it by saying we've gone back to the drawing board for some more mod's.

Briefly, after doing a couple of mileage checks, while the old girl pulled smoothly and strongly, she's also using too much juice. First test showed AUS 14.2mpg (US 11.8mpg). After talking to my expert, he suggested testing the vac advance - the reco'd one fitted to the distributor with the Pertronix kit tested out at the factory spec of 16 degrees. The one fitted to the spare distributor tested out at 20 degrees even though both are numbered 1019111 (old age?). Anyway, he suggested swapping them and rechecking mileage, and this improved to AUS 15.5mpg (US 12.9mpg) - still not good enough given that I regularly achieved AUS 19 - 20mpg (US 16 - 17mpg) in the past before the distributor weights started sticking. My driving style is pretty relaxed, with a light right foot and she seems to do best on the highway around 55 - 60mph.

I'd be interested in finding out how this compares with other peoples experiences.

Given these results it was back to the shop with the distributor. I was informed that it had been calibrated somewhere between the factory specs and those detailed in Service Bulletin 56T-14. We are now going to completely ignore that Bulletin and structure a calibration more suited to the car, modern fuel and my preferred driving style. Part of this will be increasing the vac advance closer to 20 degrees as the car was coping fine with that amount with no pinging during the last test. The plan is to get economy at least back to where it was, without any loss of drivability. I'll keep y'all posted on how it works out. Cheers, John

Thanks for the tips Mal, I'll have to learn how to reduce the size of photo files so I can upload whenever I want to. I saw you and the Coupe on Classic Restos last night and you both looked pretty impressive I must say. Yes, Bernice and I are looking forward to the National Rally at Kangaroo island and given our current freezing conditions, I certainly hope things warm up a bit and we can enjoy a few cool drinks. Maybe we'll do that regardless of the weather. Cheers, John

G'day Fellas, I have now driven a further 120 miles or so, approx 75% highway and the rest on hilly curvy roads. The car is performing very well and to the level I originally was expecting after fitting the Pertronix electronic kit. She pulls strongly and I haven't detected any pinging at all, but have yet to check what impact this has had on mileage. I'm expecting more consistency at least, and hopefully an overall improvement as I seem to be driving with lighter throttle than before. I haven't tried fiddling with the initial advance but will do so in the near future. I set it at 10 degrees BTDC but I'm not sure how accurate the timing marks are and therefore, how much if any I should go beyond. I'll experiment with the advance using the pinging under load method and see where it takes me, but I certainly don't want to overdo it and damage anything. By the way Jack, I told a lie earlier as my spare distributor is a #1110865 - sorry for misleading you. Cheers, John

G'day Mates, sorry for the tardy response but apart from having a bit to do, it's the middle of winter over here and pretty cold in the shed. I don't know what I'm doing wrong but I actually prepared a response and went to upload a photo to it and the lot disappeared into the ether never to be seen again, so I'm trying again and holding my breath at the same time as I not the world's best typist and it takes awhile to write this stuff! This time I might actually submit the text and then edit and try to add the photo later.

OK, I dug out my spare distributor, which is a #1110865 and fitted with twin points (factory setup?) and, to my surprise, is also fitted with my other new spare NAPA #RR158 cap and NAPA #RR159 rotor button (as usual, the grey matter has failed me again). It seems I retained the original cap and rotor button for the replacement distributor in which I fitted the Pertronix kit (the theory being to carry a good distributor in the spares should the electronic one fail).

Anyway, I was able to compare both new NAPA caps, both on and off another distributor in good condition, and I can report they are different. One cap has brass terminals while the other has aluminium, and the inside terminal "tunnels" on the brass cap are wider. The cap that caused me to start this thread is the one with the aluminium terminals and it still has the same rotational problem on this distributor, leading me to the conclusion that the cap is the problem, more specifically probably a manufacturing fault, and unlikely to be the suggestions you all kindly offered.

I think this cap is headed for the bin and I will be looking to replace it, although as I now realise I still have a good spare the situation is not urgent. Owen, the GM caps you mentioned are likely to be my best bet over here so when you have the time, I would greatly appreciate a list of the relevant part numbers. Thanks in advance. Cheers, John

Sorry fellas, I've tried three times to upload this bxxxxy photo of the two caps but can't make it work. It's a JPEG of 1,222 KB's. I'll try a couple of more times.

G'day Mates, has anyone had a problem with the NAPA RR158 distributor cap for a '56 Patrician. After getting my (Delco) distributor reworked recently I was going to fit a brand new cap that I had as a spare. When fitted while the distributor was still out of the car the rotor wouldn't complete a full rotation without solidly hitting a cap terminal. Checking inside the cap didn't show anything obvious that was out of whack so I have to assume that it's a manufacturing fault. I paid for two new caps as spares when I bought the car and one was, and still is, fitted to the car without any problems. I'm now wary of the NAPA product and am wondering if there is another brand in the US suitable for this car and readily available. I doubt I'll find anything over here unless another make/model car uses the same cap. Cheers, John

G'day Owen, No I'm not into that scene - I'm all for driving and enjoying our Packards, warts and all. I'm a director of our State's region of the AUS Packard Club and many moons ago we decided that we wouldn't continue running an annual concours, essentially because some were taking it all too seriously. Instead each Christmas meet we hold a "Peoples' Choice" award where those in attendance can vote for the car they like best (as long as it's a Packard). Seems to work pretty well and my Patrician has come in third a couple of times, which was nice.

I was talking to a mate the other day and telling him about the discussion on spark plugs and he asked two interesting questions - 1, if the plugs are in good condition now and working well, why do I want to replace them? and 2, if I am going to replace them with NGK BPR5ES, why don't I use BPR5EY instead, which he said is the same plug but with an inverted "V" cut into the tip of the centre electrode?

As far as "1" is concerned, I just thought it was time. They have been in for two years and the car has done 9,000 miles in that time, but I'm not really sure when plugs should be replaced. With "2", he said the "V" tip is a patented NGK idea and designed to divide and force the spark to the outsides of the electrodes which improves combustion, efficiency, power, mileage, etc etc. I'll have to research this a bit more but if correct and all positives, and the plugs are available at the same price, why not use them instead. I do have this nagging suspicion though, if they're so good, why do NGK still make the BPR5ES (???). I keep everyone posted on how it turns out. Cheers, John

Thanks Owen. I cross referenced AL65 on the NGK AUS website and came up with BPR5ES, exactly the same as the Champion RN14YC. BPR5ES's are what are in the car and I haven't had any problems with them so I'm now thinking I'm probably better off sticking with them. I don't do any power driving, maybe 25% local driving and 75% highway cruising, although rarely exceeding 60 mph, usually 55 mph. I guess I just needed some reassurance about what's best for the car. Cheers, John

G'day Mates, I can give you an interim update on the "new" distributor, although with not as much detail as I'd hoped. My distributor mechanic has weaved his majic and the car is running much better than before, although the test run was only about 10 miles (a bigger run to come in about a week's time). I gave him the factory specs, including service bulletin 56T-14, and explained that most of my driving is really highway cruising and rarely exceeds 60 mph. The car sits on 235x75 steel belt radials and has a 3.54 diff, which I think calculates out to 2500 - 2600 rpm @ 60 mph. Also, that I had had the vac advance rebuilt and didn't have access to the revised one in the bulletin.

With this info we decided that I was seeking more torque than outright power, so he set the initial advance to commence around 900 rpm and adjusted the weights and springs to ensure a more controlled/progressive advance curve through the rev range. He reckons the factory spec was too conservative. When asked about precisely what the advance curve was he declined to give specific details, basically because he was concerned his 30 years of experience would be given away - he prefers to keep his trade secrets to himself but is more than happy to rebuild any other distributor to these (?) spec's. I suppose I can't blame him for this, even though the info would be going to other Packard enthusiasts mostly in the USA, but that didn't sway him.

Anyway, with the timing set to a smidgen over 10 degrees and powering up a couple of local hills I could not detect any pinging at all and, as I mentioned, I definitely now have a car with more urge than before. As soon as I settle on the new plugs I'll experiment a little more with the timing, but I wouldn't expect to be advancing it much more than it is now - maybe try between 10 and 12 degrees and listen to what happens. The only thing that concerns me doing this is a term I've heard called "silent pinging" and I don't really know anything about this. Any clues will be most welcome. Cheers, John

Because of discussion includes talk about heat range and because I'm no expert on the science of ignition, I decided to do some more research with a view to sorting out the best NGK plug for my '56 Pat - BPR5ES or BPR4ES. The Champion website cross references the original N18 to RN14YC (resistor) and the NGK US website cross references this to either the BPR4ES or BPR5ES. The NGK AUS website only cross references the RN14YC to the BPR5ES. I also cross referenced the AC R45XLS on both NGK websites and came up with BPR4ES (US) and BPR5ES (AUS), so I'm left in a quandary about which way to jump. Randy B likes the hotter 4 but Jack V suggests the 5. I am due for a new set of plugs so advice to help ease the pontification would be greatly appreciated. The motor in the Pat is in good condition and I'm also running Pertronix electronic ignition. Cheers John