Here's the modern version, however I believe the Packard rear axle seal is too deep for this version to reach . . . it might work, but I've not used one in this application.

https://www.amazon.com/Lisle-56750-Seal-Puller/dp/B0002SRCKG/ref=asc_df_B0002SRCKG/?tag=bingshoppinga-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=&hvpos=&hvnetw=o&hvrand=&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=e&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=&hvtargid=pla-4583932709120665&psc=1

If your intent is to replace the seal, its OK for the old seal to pretty much be destroyed during removal. Some have extracted seals with sheet metal screws and vice-grips.

HH56 posted a picture of the seal puller here:

https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=23959

Post #5

This thread has a discussion about thermal relays (aka circuit breaker).

https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?start=920&topic_id=5878&order=ASC&status=&mode=0

The total discussion goes on for at least a few posts.

Kevin in a few posts you’ll probably have a question or two about setting / checking the rear axle bearing clearance. I’ve been working on a shop manual supplement on this bearing clearance subject for a while now, and if you don’t mind you could be the ultimately motivated proof reader for me. Deal?

Attach file:

---

Packard Rear Axle Bearing Shimming Procedure Expanded 007.pdf Size: 1,805.27 KB; Hits: 175

All the time.

However there are a few that will tell you a story that their parents drove nothing but Packard, and about an equal number that will come-up to me and tell me their parents had a car exactly like mine, and it was a DeSoto . . . Is this a DeSoto?

Chris R

The main difference between the 985S and 2084S configurations is the diameter of the secondary ‘main venturi’. The 985S parts list uses a 1 1/16 venturi, while the 2084S uses a 15/16 item. As you would expect once you change a venturi there were also different ‘jetting’ between the two carburetors. The original venturi size is cast into the float bowl/venturi casting, and can be seen in the photo as 1 1/16. Carter manuals acknowledge the interchangeability between the 985S and 2084S carburetors

The plot thickens somewhat in the ’54 Cavalier. In that application there is a 15/16 ‘secondary main venturi’ model (2103S), and a 1 1/16 ‘secondary main venturi’ model (2124S). My ’54 Cavalier is equipped with a 2103S carburetor . . . . which would be the smaller of the two.

Seems that WCFB carburetors with a 15/16 secondary venturi is rarer than I would have guessed. Oldsmobile used them in ’53, ’54, and ’55. For each of the original carburetors there was a later model replacement, but those replacements were also configured with a 15/16 secondary venturi. I could not find another example where the replacement carburetor had a smaller secondary venturi.

The float bowl/venturi casting (known as the Main Body in Carter speak) is one of the few parts (perhaps the only) that does not appear in the illustrated parts list. Back in the day you can buy the body flange assembly and the air horn assembly, but not the casting between the two, leaving us with the possibility that the Packard dealer may not have been able to buy the parts necessary to convert a 985S to a 2084S at the dealer. I guess this assumes there was an itchy that needed scratching out in the field and whether the ’53 Cavalier was misbehaving. Given that other car manufacture’s where not ‘down-sizing’ the secondary’s I’m thinking Packard was not chasing lower fuel volatility.

Now the question is whether the casting in the photo was modified by an individual, or was it an authorized repair/overhaul procedure to convert the larger casting to the smaller specifications. I would think the step between the Main Body and the venturi inserts suggest this was not a Carter modification. I would question whether that geometry would ever act as a venturi . . . lots of turbulence shedding off of the edge, and those areas where material was removed (aligned with the struts holding the primary venturi) look like another opportunity to create turbulence.

I’ve never seen anything like your photo, or heard of venturi chokes, and I was an old hotrodder . . . just old now! I can’t imagine how much CFM that modification cost. What secondary jets and metering rods are installed?

dp

The Evans website reports freeze protection to -40 F, which is also -40 C.

I've never used the product because my old cars are not completely leak free, but the high boiling point is quite appealing. Perhaps in the future.

dp

64avanti

I believe Joe Wareham's blog 'Joe's '49 Club Sedan' has a discussion on the OD parts in use on his car.

dp

Jerry;
I thought most temperature gauges before the war were mechanical, and inserted a bulb into the engine, in the case of Packard, in the aft portion of the cylinder head. The bulb would typically have a sealing ring or gasket to inhibit water leaks placed between the engine casting and the bulb flange. The threaded gland nut would ‘push’ onto the bulb’s flange and subsequently compress the sealing ring/gasket. Ok if that’s the design that Packard used before the advent of electric water temperature gauges, then the gland nut threads would not be tapered, because the intimate contact between the bulb and nut would not be guaranteed with tapered threads.

This business of using mechanical temperature gauges extended to at least the mid 50’s. As a young man I owned a ’55 Chevy, and that car surely had a mechanical gauge. The shop manual for that car talks about an ‘O’ ring . . . no mention of material . . . to seal the bulb . . . I just looked it up.

If the car is/was equipped with a mechanical temperature my vote would be the threads are not tapered, and therefore not NPT. 3/8 pipe would have 18 TPI with a diameter about 0.675 (remember it’s tapered), which would be something like 0.050 larger than Howard’s recommendation of 5/8 X 18 UNF.

dp

TimE: I too commend you on the depth of your investigation. I word of caution however would be the faith you might have in your cage speed calculations in that the radial load on the bearing has a significant impact on the actual cage speed, along with lubrication specifics.

I’ve been reading all of my old ‘Motor’s Manuals’ but haven’t found an easy answer . . . sorry. Actually the trouble shooting guides in the transmissions section were dropped sometime in the late ‘40s or early ‘50s.

Now for a round of ‘twenty questions’:

Is the car equipped with an ‘Econo-Drive’, aka overdrive?

May I assume the first/reverse slider rotates only when the output shaft is rotating, but in your idle case the slider was not rotating, yet the ticking was present? There was no mention whether the noise was present in reverse. I guess I assumed when you used the term ‘idle’; one the car was not moving, two the transmission was in neutral, and finally the first/reverse slider was not rotating? If this is TRUE then everything was rotating except for the first/reverse slider and the output shaft. And then when the clutch was depressed all of the rotation was brought to rest just as you said.


When the clutch is depressed, and the vehicle speed is zero, then all elements within the transmission should come to rest eventually . . . perhaps a few seconds with warm oil, and the normal warm idle speed. The next diagnostic test might be; establish a forward speed in first, and confirm the ticking noise is present. Then with the car still rolling depress the clutch, and note whether the noise is present. If the car is equipped with an overdrive let’s conduct this test twice, once with the OD mechanically enabled (cable IN), and again with the OD mechanically disabled (cable OUT). Considering the noise is also present in second gear this test should be repeated in that gear also. That would make a total of four test cases. To Chris’ point, the purpose of this test sequence would be to isolate whether the noise is generated by the transmission. If the ticking is still there when the car is moving forward (clutch depressed) and it stops only when you brake to a stop.

I’m thinking about the countershaft (aka cluster gear) thrust bearings (bronze washers), and whether the entire cluster gear has excessive fore/aft motion. It looks like there would be an axial force, proportional to torque, on the cluster gear except when the transmission is in third gear. I’m trying to make a connection between cluster gear axial position and the ticking. I haven’t found the service limits on the cluster gear clearance.

Finally, if the ticking is interference between a rotating part and the stationary case then you might find magnetic wear metal in the oil. Same would be TRUE if the 2nd gear cluster and the 1st gear main were interfering. I believe there are drain plugs with a built-in magnetics that might help determine if a gear to gear, or a gear to case interference is causing the noise.

That’s all I’ve got tonight . . . By the way try to catch the TV news tonight or tomorrow. You should see a segment about snow in the northern sections of Phoenix today. We had a bit, but not a lot, of graupel where I live.

dp